Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2210 2016 SLD 2210 2016 YLR 727
Federal Shariat Court
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 10/P of 2013 and Criminal Revision No. 1/P of 2011, decided on 28th April, 2015. Date of hearing: 21st April, 2015.
: RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Gul Daraz Khan for Appellant. Sohail Akhtar for the Complainant. Muhammad Sohail, Assistant Advocate General KPK for the Stat

IRFAN

VS

. THE STATE--Respondent

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),382,397,411

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 382, 397 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint, robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Initially, no one was charged in the case---Case was of circumstantial evidence---Evidence, in such like cases, should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused---Every chain should be linked with each other; and if any chain link was missing, then the benefit of the same be given to accused---Nothing was available on the record to show that prosecution witness had charged accused in writing prior to his arrest---Said prosecution witness, who was second son of the deceased, in his statement before the court had submitted that, accused the private servant of the deceased, had taken away amount of Rs.70,000 in cash, golden ornaments weighing 96-Tolas, two laptops with C.D. Players and other things and documents---Was not known as to what was source of information of prosecution witness and how he came to know that said articles had been taken away by accused as said accused at the time of occurrence was not in the city---Said witness was required to give a written statement showing the details of the articles lost, to the Police prior to the arrest of accused, but nothing to that effect was available on the file---Nothing was on record to show that actually the deceased had Rs.70,000 in her purse or 97 Tolas golden ornaments were already available in the house---No gold ornaments were recovered from accused---Prosecution witness in his statement before the court submitted that he had produced the empty boxes of laptops to the Police, whereas the laptops were recovered from accused---Recovery, in circumstances, had become doubtful---Alleged confessional statement of accused, was thumb impressed by accused---Questionnaires as well as the certificate, were in English and already in printed form---Alleged confessional statement, in the first instance was recorded after three days and for those three days, accused had remained in custody of Police---Said…
🔒
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