Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 392 & 34 --------- Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3) --------- Robbery, common intention, haraabah --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Accused was not named by the complainant in written report, but he was nominated subsequently through supplementary report --------- Complainant having not disclosed the source/person who unearthed the name of accused, who was allegedly involved in the commission of offence, supplementary report and deposition of complainant to the extent of implication of accused; and his identification in the court stood highly doubtful, and could not be relied upon --------- Both the witnesses had identified accused in the court as one of the culprits, but deposition of one of the prosecution witnesses, was silent regarding snatching of mobile phone --------- Identification of accused by the complainant and the eye-witness, in court, could not improve the case of the prosecution, because accused was not known to them earlier, nor any description of accused was mentioned in the written report and under S.161, Cr.P.C., statement --------- Without conducting the identification parade of accused by witnesses, identification of accused could not be relied upon --------- No specific role of having pistol with him or snatching money or mobile phone had been attributed to accused --------- Evidence collected and led by prosecution against accused, was not convincing and trustworthy --------- Case of prosecution, was highly doubtful, but the Trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence convicted and sentenced accused by impugned order, which was not sustainable --------- Accused was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances. Falak Sher v. The State 1995 SCMR 1350 and Muhammad Saleem v. The State 2010 YLR 2115 rel. (b) Criminal trial --------- ----------Benefit of doubt --------- When there was single doubt in the mind of the court, which could affect the delivery of justice, the benefit should go to accused and it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating a doubt in prudent mind, about the guilt of accused.…

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