| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 807 2014 SLD 807 2014 MLD 1712 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 14-Q of 2014, decided on 26-05-2014. Date of hearing: 13-05-2014.
MRS. ASHRAF, JEHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ayub for Appellant. Dr. Muhammad Salah-ud-Din Mengal, Prosecutor General Balochistan for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 14-Q of 2014, decided on 26-05-2014. Date of hearing: 13-05-2014.
MRS. ASHRAF, JEHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Ayub for Appellant. Dr. Muhammad Salah-ud-Din Mengal, Prosecutor General Balochistan for the State.
MUHAMMAD AZEEM
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 392 & 34---Robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Victim, who was star witness, did not implicate any accused facing trial with the commission of the crime, and his evidence was totally silent in that regard---F.I.R., had disclosed that accused persons could be identified upon seeing, but neither any identification parade was held, nor victim identified accused present before the court to be the culprits of the crime---Prosecution story as set up, seemed to be doubtful---Prosecution had relied upon 'Fard-e-Inkashaf' of accused which was recorded before the Police---Same had no value and could not be used as evidence against accused---Accused during the statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. had disowned such statement and denied recording of any extra judicial confession before the Police---No registration book of allegedly robbed motorcycle, or its copy was available on record---Non-association of private persons from the locality was another dent in the case of the prosecution---Co-accused had been acquitted extending them benefit of doubt---Accused was also entitled for that concession of benefit of doubt---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against accused, conviction and sentence of accused were set aside extending him benefit of doubt and accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---Benefit of doubt granted to one accused, was also to be extended to other non-appearing accused, as well. Muhabbat Ali and another v. The State 1985 SCMR 662; Muhammad Imran v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 954; Muhammad Ayub v. The State 2002 SD 80; Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1528; Bijoy Singh and Anr v. State of Bihar (2002 (4) Supreme 362; Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana 2003 (5) Supreme 196; Chellappan Mohandas and others v. State of Kerala AIR 1995 Supreme Court 90; Akbar Hussain and another v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 543; Muhammad Aslam and 5 others v. The State 1972 SCMR 194; Talib Hussain and another v. The State PLD 1958 W.P. Kar. 383 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MRS. ASHRAF JEHAN, J.--- This Criminal Appeal is directed against the…
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