MUHAMMAD AZAM vs THE STATE.
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's application for the quashing of a commitment order passed by a Magistrate. The petitioner and a co-accused were committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial for murder and attempted murder under sections 302/34 and 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly declined to quash the commitment order, given the petitioner's contention that the evidence on record was insufficient to justify framing a charge. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal must be dismissed. The Court reasoned that it was premature to conclude at the committal stage that there was a total absence of evidence against the petitioner, as the First Information Report specifically named the accused and there was prima facie evidence implicating them. The key principle laid down is that the High Court should not interfere with a committal order where there is prima facie evidence to support the framing of charges, as the accused must stand trial to test the evidence.
- Whether a High Court should quash a commitment order when there is prima facie evidence against the accused?
- Is it appropriate for a court to determine the sufficiency of evidence for conviction at the committal stage?
- Does the naming of an accused in the First Information Report constitute sufficient grounds to proceed to trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The petitioner and one Muhammad Akbar filed Criminal Miscellaneons No. 5287 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5699 of 1969 respectively for quashing of the commitment order passed against them by the learned Magistrate, Jhelum on the 18th August 1969, under section 302/34, P. P. C. These petitions came up for bearing before a learned-Single Judge of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore who dismissed them on the 11th November 1969. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the names of the petitioner and the co. Accused Muhammad Akbar, were specifically mentioned in the F. I. R. And that there was prima facto evidence to implicate them in the case. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
2. On the 11th February 1968, a case under section 302/34, P. P. C. Was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Dina, Jhelum at 5-15 p. m. At the instance of Master Ali Asghar who is P. W. I before the Committal Court: The prosecution ease is that on the 11th February' 10681 the Complainant accompanied by one Ghulam Yusuf, came to the house of Inayat Beg deceased.While they were sitting in the courtyard of the house of Inayat Beg, Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Azam, both armed with revolvers, passed in front of the house. Both of them laughed at Mst. Fehmeeda Begum, wife of the brother of Inayat Beg deceased. She took exception to this but they started abusing her. The deceased, seeing his sister-in-law being thus insulted, picked up a stick and gave a blow with it on the head of Muhammad Akbar who fired shots, one of which hit Inayat Beg in the chest. When Mst.
3. Fehmeeda Begum proceeded to save him, it is alleged that Muhammad Azam, petitioner, fired two shots with revolver one of which hit Mst. Fehmeeda at her chin and the other hit her daughter Mst.
4. Kausar on her leg. Inayat Beg succumbed to the injury. The petitioner was apprehended and an enquiry was held against him and Muhammad Akbar in Case No. 44/2 in the Court of First Class'
5. Magistrate, Jhelum. The learned Magistrate, by order dated the 18th August 1969, came to the conclusion that there was prima facie case against petitioner and Muhammad Akbar for causing the murder of Inayat Beg and causing injuries to Mst. Fehmeeda and Mst. Kausar. He, therefore, framed charge against them under sections 302/34 and 307/34, P. P. C. And committed both the accused to the Court of Sessions to stand their trial. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is on bail and has been directed by the learned Magistrate to appear in the Court of Sessions whenever called for. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 5287 which, as already stated, has been dismissed.
6. In support of the petition, Sardar Muhammad Zafar Ullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the facts proved on the record would not justify the conviction of the petitioner.
7. According to the learned counsel there is total absence of evidence to justify a framing of charge and, therefore, it is a fit case for interference by this Court.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that on the evidence produced on the record, it is pre--mature to say that there is no, evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, must stand his trial before the Sessions Court. There is no ground to interfere by this Court. The petition is dismissed.