Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 417(2A)

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,365-A,395

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417(2-A)---Appeal against acquittal---Appraisal of evidence---Scope---Marked difference between appraisal of evidence in appeal against conviction, and in appeal against acquittal---Appraisal of evidence in case of appeal against conviction was to be done strictly; and in appeal against acquittal, same rigid method of appraisal, was not to be applied, as there was already findings of acquittal given by the Trial Court after proper analysis/appreciation of evidence on record---In acquittal appeal, interference was made by High Court only when it appeared that there had been gross misreading of evidence which amounted to miscarriage of justice---High Court, in appeal against acquittal, would not in principle, ordinarily interfere; and instead would give due weight to the findings of the court acquitting accused---High Court, would not interfere with acquittal, merely because on re-appraisement of evidence, it came to different conclusion than that of court acquitting accused---Ordinarily, scope of appeal against acquittal of accused was considerably narrow and limited---Criterion laid down for appeal against acquittal, was entirely different than the criterion of hearing of appeal against conviction. Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 489 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 395, 365-A & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Trial Court, had elaboratory discussed each and every point involved in the case, and had assigned sound and cogent reasons for its findings---Prosecution had not been able to prove its case against accused persons---Inordinate delay of five days in lodging the FIR, had not been plausibly explained---Eye-witnesses of the alleged incident, were interested witnesses; and material discrepancies and contradictions were found in their evidence---No independent witness, was associated as witness in the case, although incident took place only 100/150 paces away from the main gate of Port Qasim---Two accused persons, at the time of alleged offence of…

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