Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2142 2015 SLD 2142 2015 MLD 624
Sindh High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 78 of 2014, decided on 8th July, 2014., DATE of hearing: 19th June, 2014.
HASAN FEROZ, J
Mutazir S. Mehdi, A.P.G. for the State.

ATIF ALI

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 392---Robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Error of mentioning wrong section of law---Effect---Appeal, in the present case, had been preferred against the of the Trial Court in the matter of conviction of five years against which appeal could be preferred under S.408, Cr.P.C., instead of S.410, Cr.P.C.---Such error of mentioning of wrong section, would not come in the way of dispensation of justice---Contents of the charge described snatching on the force of weapon, whereas the deposition of the complainant was vague about pointing of pistol upon him, though he explicitly stated to have resisted---In order to constitute offence under S.392, P.P.C., it was to be seen that the offender for that end, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint---Hurt caused by offender be with the express object of facilitating the committing of the offence in carrying away the property---By pointing the pistol, accused persons had put the complainant under fear of threat of death, but that threat departed when the complainant spoke that he resisted when accused persons had snatched his mobile and the cash---Trial Court had not taken into consideration the glaring improvements and contradictions arriving between each of the witnesses---Evidence, did not show that pistol had been pointed upon the complainant by accused---Case of prosecution was full of contradictions on various points, particularly the manner in which the incident was witnessed by the prosecution witnesses---Trial Court had to look into every piece of evidence forming part of transaction to constitute offence while delivering of conviction, whereas in presence of contradictions and disjunction in the evidence on record, whereby the offence under S.392, P.P.C. had not been proved beyond shadow of doubt on the scale of available evidence, of Trial Court, was set aside, and accused was acquitted extending him benefit of doubt and he was released, in circumstances. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt; and any doubt arising out in…
🔒
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