| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1886 2016 SLD 1886 2016 PLJ 540 |
Crl. Rev. No, 347 of 2009, 9/3/2016
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Sher Muhammad
VS
State Etc.
Law: Police Order (22 of 2002)
Section: 344,337-F(i),337-A(i)
Keywords: Result: Petition accepted JUDGMENT ' The petitioner faced trial in case FIR No, 406/2004, registered under Sections 344,337F(i),337A(i), PPC read with Article 155 of Police Order, 2002 with Police Station Gaggo, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari and at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.02.2009 convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the following manner: 1. Under Section 344, PPC, ten months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs, 2000/- and in defeult whereof to further undergo for ten days S.I. 2. Under Section 337A(i), PPC, to pay Rs, 2000/- as 'daman' and simple imprisonment for two months. 3. Under Section 337F(i), PPC, to pay Rs, 2000/- as 'daman' and simple imprisonment for two months. 4. Under Article 155 Police Order, 2002, to ten months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs, 2000/- and in default whereof to further undergo for 10 days S.I. ' Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the petitioner. 2. Against this conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Burewala vide judgment dated 19.09.2009 dismissed the same by upholding conviction and sentence of the petitioner. 3. Brief history of the case is that the petitioner was posted as ASI at the Police Station where he illegally confined one Allah Ditta and physically tortured him. The said Allah Ditta was recovered on the orders of the High Court and medically examined whereafter the petitioner has been implicated in the case in hand. Report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Was forwarded to the Court where statements of six prosecution witnesses were recorded as the petitioner did not plead guilty to the charge. All the incriminating material led by the prosecution was confronted to the petitioner by recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he negated all the allegations and produced Muhammad Ashraf retired S.I. As DW-1 in his defence. The petitioner did not make statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. 4. Parties heard. Record perused. 5. The documents relied upon by the learned Courts below reveal that while convicting the petitioner, the learned Courts have relied upon the orders…
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