| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 3057 2018 SLD 3057 2018 YLR 48 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal appeals Nos. 2, 4, 14 of 2016 and criminal appeal No. 28 of 2010, decision Dated: 03-03-2017. hearing Dated: 26-01-2017. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court Dated 08.04.2010 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 42, 48 and 49 of 2008). (On appea
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2016). Abdul Majeed Mallick, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2016). Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2016). Muhammad Reaz Alam, Advocate
Criminal appeals Nos. 2, 4, 14 of 2016 and criminal appeal No. 28 of 2010, decision Dated: 03-03-2017. hearing Dated: 26-01-2017. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court Dated 08.04.2010 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 42, 48 and 49 of 2008). (On appea
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2016). Abdul Majeed Mallick, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2016). Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2016). Muhammad Reaz Alam, Advocate
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2 OF 2016 SAIRAN BIBI AND 4 OTHERS
VS
MUHAMMAD JAVAID AND 5 OTHERS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2016 ZAHEER AHMED VS THE STATE AND 5 OTHERS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.14 OF 2016 MUHAMMAD JAVAID VS THE STATE AND 6 OTHERS CRIMINAL APPEAL N
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 341,396
Law: Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)
Section: 13
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 396 & 341---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Dacoity with murder---Wrongful restraint---Possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---No contradiction regarding the time, manner and place of occurrence in the statements of eye-witnesses---Said eye-witnesses were also consistent on the point that accused persons were involved in the commission of offence---Said eye-witnesses had no enmity or ill-will against accused persons to falsely implicate them in the commission of offence---Eye-witnesses had also been found 'Aadil'---Recovery of looted articles from accused persons, also supported the case of the prosecution---Accused persons, in circumstances, could not be said to have been roped in the case falsely---Investigating Agency had not conducted the identification parade, such omission could be treated as an irregularity and the whole case could not be smashed on the basis of the same---Identification parade was not a substantive piece of evidence---Eye-witnesses while recording their statements before the Trial Court having identified accused persons, conviction could be recorded in absence of identification parade---Some eye-witnesses also identified the articles looted from them by accused persons---All those aspects of the case, did not warrant to give the clean chit to accused persons---Case against accused persons, though was not of acquittal, but strong mitigating circumstances were available which could not be ignored---Story established by the prosecution was different from the one narrated in the FIR or in statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Investigating Officer had stated that an injury form was prepared, but no such form was found as part of the record---Eye-witnesses had also narrated the different story in that regard---Nothing was on record about the persons who apprehended the accused---Recovery of revolver on the pointation of accused, had also been made after a considerable delay, which could not be relied upon safely---Illegality committed by Investigating Agency amounted to grave miscarriage of justice---Case against accused persons, was of lesser…
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