| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2201 2011 SLD 2201 2011 YLR 674 |
Sindh High Court
Spl. A.T. Appeals Nos. 1 and 4 of 2008, decided on 14thJanuary, 2011. dates of hearing: 30th November, 9th and 10thDecember, 2010
GULZAR AHMED AND IMAM BUX BALOCH, JJ
Mehmood A. Qureshi for Appellants (in Spl. ATA No. 1 of 2008). Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for Appellants (in Spl. ATA No. 4 of 2008). Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.G. for the State
Spl. A.T. Appeals Nos. 1 and 4 of 2008, decided on 14thJanuary, 2011. dates of hearing: 30th November, 9th and 10thDecember, 2010
GULZAR AHMED AND IMAM BUX BALOCH, JJ
Mehmood A. Qureshi for Appellants (in Spl. ATA No. 1 of 2008). Ghulam Qadir Jatoi for Appellants (in Spl. ATA No. 4 of 2008). Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.G. for the State
SHAH NAWAZ and anotherVsTHE STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(6), 396, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-e-amd, dacoity with murder and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---According to the prosecution, in a broad-daylight near the village of complainant party, accused along with their accomplices had taken away 65 buffaloes---Different community people were following the dacoits, but none of them was cited as a witness---Even owners of buffaloes had not been cited as witnesses; it was unbelievable that 65 buffaloes had been taken any near a big village in day time but the people could not follow up the dacoits---Accused resided near village of the complainant party having disputes on landed property---During investigation, Police recorded statement of one who related to the complainant party, but during trial the prosecution had not examined said witness---On the contrary, the defence had examined the witness, who in his evidence, had falsified the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses---No buffalo was recovered from the possession of accused persons---No weapon was recovered from the possession of accused---Complainant who was eye-witness, had not given the names of the owners of buffaloes during trial---One set of accused persons had been acquitted on the same evidence, while remaining accused were convicted, which was against the norms of criminal justice---Once the prosecution case was doubtful for one set of accused; the benefit could be given to other set of accused, which the Trial Court had not done---Same benefit was to be extended in favour of remaining accused persons---Prosecution case as to the veracity and credibility of eye-witnesses, was full of contradictions and doubts, benefit of which must go to accused persons---Accused were acquitted of the charges and were set free. Atta Muhammad and another v. The State 1995 SCMR 599; Rat, it Ali v. The State 2010 SCMR 584, Akhtar Ali and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 6; Noor Muhammad v. The State and another 2010 SCMR 97; Muhammad Bux v. Abdul Aziz and others 2010 SCMR 1959; Ghulam Mutsafa v. The State 2009 SCMR 916; Allah Wadayo v. The State 2001 SCMR 25; Farmanullah v. Qadeem Khan…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492