Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2723 2014 SLD 2723 2014 PCRLJ 1707
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-180 of 2013, decided on 30th April, 2014. DATE of hearing: 23rd April, 2014
HASAN FEROZ, J
Ms. Aliya Sahar Qaimkhani for Applicant. Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G. for the State

MUHAMMAD BUX alias PAPOO SHAR

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)-------S. 13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 439 & 537---Possessing unlicensed arms---Reappraisal of evidence---Trial Court as well as Appellate Court had failed to minutely appraise the evidence recorded before the Trial Court by prosecution witnesses---Revisional court had jurisdiction to correct the error resulting from non-reading, misreading of evidence, or where the court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them---High Court, while sitting in revision had the jurisdiction to even assess and examine the evidence adduced at trial---Procedural error could be rectified by High Court under S.537, Cr.P.C.---Basic duty of the court was to exercise its powers and authority when facts calling for its exercise were brought to its notice---Revisional court, could always exercise its power to correct manifest illegality or to prevent gross miscarriage of justice---Sufficient doubt existed in the present case, which went to the very root of the case---Accused was already known to the complainant, but no such mention was shown in the F.I.R.---Evidence recorded in the case was contradictory; fabrication of story seemed to be latent and patent apparently---Involvement of accused was cooked up story; and at trial, effort was made to support such story which could not stand on its foot; as the prosecution evidence was not convincing, and was not free from reasonable doubts---Despite gathering of number of persons at the place of incident and arrest, mashirs were procured by the complainant from his relations belonging to his village---No points were framed for disposal of the appeal by the appellate court below---Decision in appeal was a slipshod method adopted by the Appellate Court below, which in no way could be appreciated---Courts below had failed to attach importance to material aspects, which had resulted in serious miscarriage of justice---Impugned s passed by two courts below were set aside, and accused was set at liberty, in circumstances. Nur Elahi v. The State and 2 others PLD 1966 SC 708; Pahalwan Machhi v. Abdul Wahid and another 1991 PCr.LJ 728; Patasho v. The State 1997 MLD 1689; Naveed…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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