| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2365 2013 SLD 2365 2013 PCRLJ 1829 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-53 and S-56 of 2012, decided on 10th December, 2012
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Zulfiqar Ali Naich for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. S-53 of 2012). Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-56 of 2012). Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.G. for the State
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-53 and S-56 of 2012, decided on 10th December, 2012
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J
Zulfiqar Ali Naich for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. S-53 of 2012). Abdul Baqi Jan Kakar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. S-56 of 2012). Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.G. for the State
SHAMAN alias SHAMOO and 3 others
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Guilt or innocence---Determination---Question of guilt or innocence is always to be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record through course of trial and not on the basis of material by which one person is sent to face his trial---Substantive evidence of witness is his/her statement which is recorded during trial, where accused has mandatory right to cross-examine the witness. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery---Effect---Mere recovery alone, being a corroborative piece of evidence in nature, is not sufficient to prove charge against accused. Muhammad Afzal v. State 2009 SCMR 436 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Such evidence cannot identify or locate perpetrators of offence. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 395---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3)---Dacoity and Harrabah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Principle---Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for committing dacoity---Validity---Ocular evidence was contradictory and two prosecution witnesses, who were star witnesses of the incident negated evidence of complainant and even did not identify accused persons---Prosecution failed in establishing charge beyond reasonable doubt---No sufficient evidence was available against accused to justify their conviction because system of safe criminal administration of justice demanded that a single reasonable dent was sufficient to make whole case doubtful and benefit thereof must be given to accused as a matter of right and not as a matter of grace---Miscarriage of justice might arise from acquittal of guilty, no less from conviction of innocent---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court as the same was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. JUDGMENT SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---The appellants/accused Shaman alias Shaman, Ghulam Nabi alias Rato, Moula Bux alias Moulo and Kashir alias Kashoo and Gulzar, have preferred their respective Criminal Appeals Nos.S-53 and 56 of 2012, arising out of one and same…
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