ALAbbaslawfirm

* of or in is not valid* .

*Issues* :

1) Whether Bilal Sikandar is entitled to post-arrest bail given the evidence available on record, including the ocular and medical evidence.

2) Whether the alleged act of honor killing could be mitigated by the defense of "ghairat" (honor).

3) Whether the forgiveness by the legal heirs (parents of the deceased) could lead to Bilal Sikandar's release on bail.

--- *Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:*

*Bail Denied* :
The Lahore High Court rejected the bail application, noting the serious nature of the crime and the substantial evidence linking Bilal Sikandar to the murder, including the testimony of police witnesses and the recovery of the firearm used in the crime.

*Honor Killing Not Justifiable:*
The court emphasized that
honor killings are illegal and cannot be justified under any legal or moral pretext.

This principle is well-established in previous judgments, and the plea of 'ghairat" does not provide grounds for bail or reduced culpability.

*Forgiveness by Legal Heirs Not Applicable:*
Despite the parents of the deceased forgiving the accused and
compounding the offense, the court held that under amended laws, including section 311 of PPC, honor killings cannot be waived or compounded. The convict can still face life imprisonment regardless of such forgiveness.

*Medical vs. Ocular Evidence Conflict:*
The defense
argument about the inconsistency between the medical report and the witness account (regarding the location of the bullet wound) was rejected. The court held that such matters require a deeper appreciation of evidence, which is not appropriate at the bail stage.

The court concluded that there were sufficient reasonable grounds to believe that Bilal Sikandar committed the offense and dismissed the petition for post-arrest bail.

--- *Citations/Precedents* :

_Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State (PLD 2001 SC 96):_
Held that no one has the right to kill in the name of honor, and such acts are against the law and religion.

_Umer Din v. The State and others (2017 YLR Note 378 [Lahore]):_
The court expressed concerns that granting bail in honor killing cases could encourage more such incidents.

_Khadim Hussain and another v. The State (PLD 2012 Balochistan 179):_
The court observed that killing women
under the pretext of honor is unconstitutional and
un-Islamic.

_Muhammad Qasim v. The State (PLD 2018 SC 840):_
This case discussed the amendments to section 302 of PPC, excluding honor killings from being treated as simple murder.

_Mumtaz v. The State (2012 SCMR 556):_
Established that
conflicts between medical and ocular evidence cannot be thoroughly assessed at the bail stage.

_Ata-ullah v. The State (2014 SCMR 1210):_
Explained the
doctrine of further inquiry and its application in
determining bail eligibility.

_Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. The State and others (2002 SCMR 1886):_
Further inquiry is not automatically a ground for bail in every case.

# Citation: 2024 LHC 3700

# *SOHAIL ABBAS ADVOCATE HIGH COURT
03325955059*

دیت کس وقت کے حساب سے دی جائے گی وقوعہ یا راضی نامہ
PLD 2012 SC 769...
2012 SCMR 437...
Offense U/S 302 PPC Committed in January 2017 and Compromise Effected in August 2019. Now Question is Diyat Amount Shall be paid in Compromise according to the Amount fixed in 2017 when offense was commited or the amount fixed in 2019 when compromise effected?
Answer: Diyat amount would be determined according to prevailing rate of Diyat at the time when compromise was effected. Date of compromise would be relevent for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and not the date when offence was committed...

2023 S C M R 184

Bail --- Case of further inquiry --- Scope --- Further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for reaching a just conclusion --- Case of further inquiry pre - supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime .

ALAbbaslawfirm Major services in the field of Family, Criminal, Civil, Corporate & Immigration related Lawyer avail

دوران تفتیش پولیس گواہان کے بیانا ت کیسے ریکارڈ کرے گی. دفعہ 161 ضابطہ فوجداری.
Criminal Procedure Code
161. Examination of witnesses by police.--(1) Any Police-officer making an investigation under this Chapter or any police-officer not below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2) Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such office, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture.

(3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.

COMMENTARY

1. Scope and extent. Statement recorded not substantial evidence. 1968 SCMR 161; PLD 1965 SC 1. Statement recorded under this section is inadmissible in evidence. 2001 SCMR 14. Delay of one day. Credibility not affected. 1968 SCMR 161. Police not recording statement. PLD 1969 Lah. 114. Copy not supplied-Evidence to be ignored. PLD 1968 Lah. 694. Omission need not to be proved. 1971 PCr.LJ 274. However, benefit will go to accused. 1971 DLC 87. PW given up statement under S. 164 not to be used for corroboration. 1970 PCr.LJ 1104. Authenticity. PLD 1982 S.C. 286. Credibility of a witness to be looked with serious suspicion if his statement u/S. 161 recorded with delay. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. Quetta 978. Non recording of statement of victim-Effect. PLJ 1982 FSC 17. Incumbent for the police to investigate on the receipt of information. PLD 1969 Pesh. 109. Statement before police during investigation inadmissible in evidence. 2001 SCMR 14. The statement recorded by a police officer under S. 161 even though is a previous statement u/S. 145, Evidence Act can be used for the purpose of establishing a contradiction or impeaching the credit of the witness but only in the manner provided in Section 102. AIR 1999 S.C. 2161. Prosecution not to be permitted to confront or contradict its own witnesses with previous statement. PLJ 2001 Sh. C. (AJ&K) 39. Statement under this section made during investigation of the case has got no value at all and such disclosure is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon at bail stage. 2003 MLD 261. Statement of prosecution witnesses given to I.O. during course of investigation are not required to be recorded in the evidence through the I.O. as the same is inadmissible in evidence. 2003 MLD 676. Statement of accused at the earliest opportunity before the police during investigation carries weight. PLJ 2005 FSC 50. Statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. absolutely inadmissible and cannot be looked into for any purpose muchless for recording conviction on any criminal charge. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 7 (DB). Giving up PWs can be examined u/S. 540 Cr.P.C. However they can be confronted with their police statements in terms of S. 162 Cr.P.C. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Lah.) 395. Non-examination u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. attributes to incompetence of police and complainant cannot be confronted. 2005 PCr.LJ Pesh. 119.

2. Belated recording of statement. Statement of witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of having been recorded after some delay. 2003 YLR 761. Such statement has no evidenciary value. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 7. Seriously doubtful if delay not plausibly explained. 2001 PCr.LJ 1766 = PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Quetta) 1978.

3. Nature. Statements u/S. 161 are not substantive evidence and can be used only for a very limited purpose of contradicting a witness at trial so as to prevent him from corrupting his testimony by way of dishonest improvements at trial stage. NLR 2004 Cri. (Pesh) 168. No evidenciary value. PLJ 2005 Pesh. 7.

4. Supplementary statement. Brought on record by defence can be read and considered alongwith FIR. 2001 PCr.LJ 1968.

5. Issuance of process. Process can be issued on basis of material presented alongwith challan if Court considers that justifiable grounds exist to issue process. 2000 PCr.LJ 1679.

6. Dying Declaration. Substantive piece of evidence if trustworthy. 1992 PSC 168 (S.C.). Statement of an injured person an admissible evidence PLD 1992 S.C. 211. Statement under Section 161 not a substantive piece of evidence-Can be used only for contradiction. 1990 PCr.LJ 1765. Delayed recording of statement without explanation to be ruled out of consideration. NLR 1998 Cri. (Quetta) 67.

7. Statement by injured person. Statement given by injured person to I.O. and also FIR lodged by him, is not admissible as dying declaration. AIR 1999 S.C. 3883.

8. Testimony of witness. Testimony of witness not recorded under S. 161. Not admissible. 1995 PCr.LJ 248 = PLJ 1994 Cr. C. 473. Not a substantial piece of evidence, 1994 PCr.LJ 248, nor legal evidence. Can be used by accused for contradiction. 1995 MLD 1635; NLR 1994 SD 682. Statement recorded after delay. 1993 SCMR 559.

Statement of all the witnesses recorded by the police in whatever form whether in the shape of narrative or question answer form or even in the form of condensed or summarized statements are covered by S. 161. 1995 PCr.LJ 1124. Witness cannot resile his previous statement. PLJ 2005 SC 451.

9. Object. Purpose to enable the accused to prepare his defence. Accused has a right to confront the witness with his statement recorded under S 161, Cr.P.C. PLD 1996 Lah 286.

10. Zimnies. Zimnies recorded by I.O. during course of investigation-Part of record under S. 161, Cr.P.C. Accused can demand copies of such statements subject to exceptions provided under S. 162, Cr.P.C. PLD 1996 Lah 277; PLJ 1996 Cr.C. 307. Accused has right to receive all the copies of the statements of all witnesses recorded under S. 161 in terms of S. 265-C(1)(c), Cr.P.C. irrespective of the fact whether they have been cited as witnesses in the calendar attached to the challan or not, seven days before the commencement of the trial. PLD 2003 Lah 290.

11. Qanun-e-Shahadat. Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are independent of the provisions of Criminal procedure Code, 1898. Admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence, production of documents, impeaching the credit of the witness etc. are the circumstances governed by Qanun-e-Shahadat. Only the case diaries are meant to be treated as "privilege" and shall not be made accessible to the accused. Court in terms of Art. 15, Qanun-e-Shahadat can force the I.O. to look into the case diaries to answer correctly the questions put to him in cross examination. PLD 2003 Lah 290.

12. Evidentiary value. Statement of accused recorded u/S. 161 is not a substantive evidence and can be used only for a limited purpose of contradicting a witness at the trial to prevent him from corrupting his testimony by way of dishonest improvements. 2003 YLR 2700. No evidenciary value. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 7. No weight can be given if eye-witness is murdered before recording his statement before Court. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 861 = PLD 2001 Pesh. 117.

13. Delayed Examination. If the police did not record the statement of the witness and delay was caused in recording the same. Then a reasonable explanation is required to be furnished for such delay. 2006 PCr.LJ 639 (Kar.).

Statements of witnesses recorded by the police at a belated stage would not be fatal, but where delay is not explained and said witnesses had been introduced at a later stage purposely manoeuvred to implicate the accused, such delay would adversely affect the prosecution case and no explicit reliance can be placed on the evidence of such witnesses. 2008 PCr.LJ 881.

ALAbbaslawfirm Major services in the field of Family, Criminal, Civil, Corporate & Immigration related Lawyer available in Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Attock Pakistan. Our services also include Civil Plots Sale Purchase Matters.

It is settled law that FIR is a public document and every person has a right obtain the copy of the same Petitioner was well entitled to get her grievance redressed under section 3 of the Information Act, 2013 which provides that any person may exercise the RTI in the manner prescribed by the Act.
WP 30787/21
Khushnood Bano Vs RPO Faisalabad etc 19-05-2021
2021 LHC 1086

ALAbbaslawfirm Major services in the field of Family, Criminal, Civil, Corporate & Immigration related Lawyer available in Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Attock Pakistan. Our services also include Civil Plots Sale Purchase Matters.

گرفتار ملزم کی درخواست ضمانت صرف اس وجہ سے خارج نہیں کی جا سکتی کہ اسکا شریک ملزم مفرور یا اشتہاری ہے،
2021 SCMR 138
497 CrPC,
Criminal liability couldn't be shifted from the co accused to the accused merely on the ground that Co accused is fugitive from law.

Registration of Nikah nama could be made in any arbitration council of Pakistan
*نکاح کا اندراج*
*نکاح نامہ پاکستان کی کسی کسی بھی یونین کونسل میں درج کرایا جا سکتا ہےضروری نہیں کے منسلک یونین کونسل میں درج ہو*
2008 PCRLJ Page #92

Abated Challan, what does it mean?

اس سے مراد وہ چالان جس میں نامزد ملزم یا ملزمان ہلاک ھو چکے ھوں تو پولیس 173 کی رپورٹ عدالت میں پیش کرتی ھے کہ نامزد ملزم ہلاک ھوچکے ہیں۔ اسے مہلوک چالان یا abated challan کہتے ہیں.

DISOBEDIENT WIFE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR MAINTENANCE
When the Wife is not Willing to Reside with her Husband then She is not Entitled for any Maintenance.
2016 YLR 371
2004 CLC 1700
1998 MLD 1944
PLD 1977 Lah 90

If bail before arrest was cancelled by the Sessions Court, subsequent application for bail before arrest was not maintainable before the High Court---Remedy, if any, was by way of revision from the order of the court concerned, canceling bail---Even otherwise, no mala fide or ulterior motive had been alleged by the accused-petitioner against the prosecution, which was the sole ground for grant of bail before arrest---High Court dismissed petition for bail before arrest being not maintainable.

2017 PCRLJ 1513

اگر کوئی شخص حق مہر کی ادائیگی کے لیے ضامن مقرر ھوتا ھے تو وہ حق مہر ادا کرنے کا اسی طرح پابند ھے جیسے دولہا پابند ھے.
اگر شوھر نے حق مہرادا نہ کیا ھو تو بیوی علیحدہ رہ کر نان و نفقہ طلب کر سکتی ھے.
عدم ادا ئیگی حق مہر کی صورت میں شوھر ڈگری اعادہ حقوق زن آشوئی کاحقدار نہ ھے

If another person had stood surety or had guaranteed the payment of dower, he/she could lawfully be impleaded in the suit---Surety and guarantor to the dower were as much party and liable to pay dower as the bridegroom himself--

Wife having not been paid the settled dower by husband, she could claim separate maintenance.


Husband having not paid the dower and maintenance to wife, his suit for, restitution of conjugal rights could not be decreed.

2007 CLC 1517

Single dent in the case of prosecution is sufficient for acquittal of accused.
2020 PCRLJ 178

Principle of consistency
Bail matter accused of similar bail granted.
2008 SCMR 173
2017 MLD 349

Confession before the police has no evidentiary value. Article 38 QSO
2016 MLD 934 Sindh

بیوی چاہے خود بھی کیوں نہ کماتی ہو پھر بھی شوہر خرچہ دینے کا پابند ہے.
2017 Civil court cases 346 SC india

2020 PCrLJ 789


S. 376---Rape---Victim, a deaf and dumb female---Examination of victim by Medical Board---Scope---Accused assailed the judgment of Trial Court whereby he was convicted under S. 376, P.P.C.---Record of Trial Court revealed that the complainant had filed application for summoning the Deaf and dumb Expert for examination of victim, which was allowed, however, the application filed by accused for constitution of Medical Board to medically examine the victim was dismissed---Interpreter reported that the victim was not only deaf and dumb but she was also mentally retarted and was unable to make her statement---Dismissal of application filed by accused was not sustainable since the victim was stated to be deaf and dumb ---Held, Trial Court should have got the victim medically examined from a medical expert; examined the expert in the court; provided an opportunity to the defence to cross-examine the said witness and decided the matter accordingly---Appeal was partially allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the accused was set aside, matter was remanded to the Trial Court to refer the victim to a Medical Board and re-write the judgment after examination of the Chairman of Medical Board.

In cases of r**e solitary statement of victim is sufficient to convict the accused, if same was confidence inspiring.
2018 PCRLJ 1538

Dely alone is not helpful for defence to claim acquittal
2018 PCRLJ note 22