Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2737 2013 SLD 2737 2013 YLR 1827
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 428 and 433 of 2011, decided on 1st February, 2013. DATE of hearing: 19th December, 2012
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Abdul Qadir Halepoto for Appellant (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 428 of 2011). Mehmood A. Qureshi for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 (in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 2011). Muhammad Ashraf Kazi for Appellant (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 433 of 2011). Muha

MUMTAZ ALI and another

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Burden of proof---Burden of proof lay on the prosecution which had to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Accused after acquittal from criminal charge enjoyed 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. 452, 337-A(i), (ii), (iii), 337-L((2) & 337-F(vi)--- House-trespass after pre-paration for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint; causing shajjah, without exposing bone, exposing any bone and fracturing the bone of the victim; other hurt, and causing munaqqilah to any person---Appreciation of evidence---Parties were on disputed terms over agricultural land---Complainant party was hostile and inimical towards accused persons---All eye-witnesses were closely related inter se---People reportedly had gathered at the place of wardat, but none of them had been examined in the case---Independent corroboration to the ocular account furnished by the prosecution, was lacking in the case---Evidence of the eye-witnesses carried major contradiction, which had made the whole case of prosecution as doubtful---No specific role was assigned to accused in the F.I.R.; even the complainant and prosecution witnesses had not implicated accused specifically---Medical evidence did not support contents of F.I.R. and evidence of complainant---Rifle had not been stolen or taken away by accused as alleged---Such contradictions had shaken the reliability of the eye-witnesses and had created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Delay of 6-1/2 hours in lodging F.I.R., had not satisfactorily been explained---Apprehension existed that F.I.R. was lodged after due deliberation and consultation---Statements of injured eye-witnesses were not recorded immediately---Statement of witnesses of mashirnama of injuries were recorded and prepared…
🔒
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