| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2760 2013 SLD 2760 2013 YLR 1905 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 452 of 2011, decided on 1st February, 2013. DATE of hearing: 19th December, 2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Abdul Qadir Halepoto for Appellant. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for
Respondents. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, A.P.G. for the State
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 452 of 2011, decided on 1st February, 2013. DATE of hearing: 19th December, 2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Abdul Qadir Halepoto for Appellant. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for
Respondents. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, A.P.G. for the State
MIR HASSAN
VS
The STATE and 6 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Burden of proof---Burden of proof would lie on the prosecution, which had to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.417(2-A)---Appeal against acquittal---Accused after acquittal from criminal charge would enjoy double presumption of innocence; one before the trial of case and the other after his acquittal---Court while dealing with an acquittal appeal, was bound to examine whether court below had not ignored any evidence on record, or had discarded any evidence for the reasons not recognized by law. Barkat Ali v. Shaukat Ali and others 2004 SCMR 249 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.497, 337, 337-F(ii) & 504---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Adultry, Shajjah, causing damiyah, intentional insult intent to provoke breach of peace---Appeal against acquittal---Principles---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant and prosecution witnesses were closely related to each other---Complainant though had concealed the enmity with accused person, but had admitted the pendency of civil suits---Oral and documentary evidence had shown that complainant and accused persons, were on disputed terms over agricultural land---Complainant party being hostile and inimical towards accused persons, their evidence being interested, was to be scrutinized with care and caution---Court, in circumstances, was to look for independent corroboration---Incident took place in a thickly populated area in a day time, but no person from that locality had been cited or examined as a prosecution witness---Independent corroboration was lacking in the case---Major contradictions existed in between the evidence of prosecution witness, which had made the whole case of prosecution doubtful---Mashirnama of injury was prepared after 10 days of incident---Neither Mashir of injuries nor Investigating Officer had seen the actual injuries---Memo of injury had been prepared at the instance of complainant---Concealing of injuries and registration of counter case by the complainant, had adversely affected their credence, and their evidence, was not confidence inspiring---Said contradictions…
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