| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1523 2015 SLD 1523 2015 MLD 339 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2013, decision dated: 30-05-2014
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Sudhamchand for Appellant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G. for the State. Ghulam Shabir Dayo for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No.111 of 2013, decision dated: 30-05-2014
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J
Sudhamchand for Appellant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G. for the State. Ghulam Shabir Dayo for the Complainant
NISAR AHMED and 3 others
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 324 & 354---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were convicted under S.324, P.P.C., despite no charge under said section was framed---None of the alleged injured witnesses stated that accused persons had made murderous assault upon them, nor any sort of question relating to that charge was put to accused persons in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Both parties were not on good terms; their evidence being interested, was to be scrutinized with care and caution---Complainant had already been disbelieved by the Trial Court to the extent of injuries allegedly sustained by her, holding that charge under S.324, P.P.C., could not be established by the prosecution---Complainant party and State counsel, having not challenged said findings of the Trial Court, same had attained finality---Evidence of injured witnesses carried major contradictions, which had shaken the reliability of the eye-witnesses, and had created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Evidence of said witnesses could not be relied upon---Large number of accused were involved in the case and enmity existed between the parties---Independent corroboration to the prosecution version was necessary, which was lacking in the case as independent witnesses were not cited/examined---Prosecution case being not free from doubt, convictions and sentences awarded to accused persons by the Trial Court, were set aside, and they were acquitted giving them the benefit of doubt---Accused being on bail their bail bond stood cancelled, and surety was discharged, in circumstances. Munir Ahmed alias Munir v. The State 2001 SCMR 56; Mst. Jallan v. Muhammad Riaz and others PLD 2003 SC 644 and Muhammad Irshad and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1030 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 221 & 222---Framing of charge---Scope---Charge must contain all material particulars, as to time, place as well specific name of the alleged offences, the manner in which the offence was committed; and the particulars of accused; so as to afford 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