ESLAM WAZIR vs NEK DAR KHAN Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 249 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ESLAM WAZIR VS NEK DAR KHAN Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 427, 109 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 233, 234 & 235---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Application for framing of a single charge in the two cases filed by accused was declined---Effect---Section 233, Cr.P.C., laid down the general principle that for every distinct offence, of which any person was accused, there should be a separate charge, and every such charge should be tried separately---General rule had been provided as separate framing of charge for each independent offence or offences, as well as its separate trial---Exceptions had no doubt been provided in Ss. 234, 235, 236 & 239 Cr.P.C., but same would be construed as exceptions to the general rule and could only be resorted to when a case was fully covered under the four corners of exceptions provided therein---Section 234, Cr.P.C. was discretionary in nature, which was evident from use of the words 'may be' and therefore same had been left to the discretion of the court, for the reason that the court would see whether facts and circumstances of offences allowed framing of a simple charge---Joinder of charges in offences carrying capital punishment at different places and times could hardly be taken to be a reasonable exercise of discretion vested in the court by S. 234, Cr.P.C.---One could not perceive that a person committing offence of murder of different persons within a span of one year might be tried together---Such an interpretation would obviously offend against the general rule enshrined in S. 233, Cr.P.C.---Section 235, Cr.P.C., provided that if in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one were committed by same person, he might be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence---In the present case, stories of the two FIRs showed that the offences were independent in nature and same could hardly be termed as forming same transaction---Offences under Ss. 302 & 324, P.P.C. in respect of which FIR had been registered stood completed at the spot---Accused left and while travelling in the motorcar noticed the police party at a different place and time and made firing upon them,in respect of which another FIR had been registered---Except the factum of arrest of accused/petitioner, and recovery of firearm (weapon of offence), rest of the evidence of the two cases were not common and had been independent from each other---Two transactions could not be called so connected together as to form the same transaction---Trial Court had exercised its discretion in a matter, which fell in its discretionary powers---Exercise of discretion by the Trial Court could neither be termed as illegal, perverse, arbitrary, nor resulting into any injustice or prejudice to the accused---Interference in order of the Trial Court being not justified, criminal revision petition was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description

ESLAM WAZIR vs NEK DAR KHAN Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 249 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ