Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1066 2018 SLD 1066 2018 PCRLJ 566
Peshawar High Court
Cr.A. No. 540-P and Murder Reference No. 14-P of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 02-10-2017.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE, QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Barrister Zahoor-ul-Haq and Abdul Latif Afridi for Appellants. Mian Arshad Jan, AAG assisted by Mian Faheem Akbar for the State. Sahibzada Asadullah for the Complainant.

AITBAR SHAH AND 4 OTHERS

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Contents of ---Prosecution case was that the accused party while armed with deadly weapons assaulted on the complainant party, made firing, resulting in the death of two persons while the complainant and prosecution witnesses escaped unhurt---After submission of challan, Trial Court framed formal charge against the accused persons under Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149, P.P.C., to which accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial---Prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and closed its evidence---Statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.; accused persons though, denied allegations of the prosecution against them, but declined to either be examined on oath or produce defence evidence---Accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court, without giving any findings in respect of charge against them under S. 148, P.P.C. which was a legal infirmity---Effect---Impugned failed to meet the mandatory requirements of S. 367, Cr.P.C. owing to omission on the part of the Trial Court to record findings on the charge under S. 148, P.P.C.---Record transpired that accused-appellants were distinctly and separately charged under S. 148, P.P.C. for "rioting" while armed with deadly weapons, carrying the penalty of imprisonment up-to three years or with fine or both---Trial Court in contrary to the mandatory provision of S. 367, P.P.C., failed to even advert to the said charge, which created scope for remand of the case for rewriting the ---High Court observed that Trial Courts were to exercise extra care and caution and take cognizance of all relevant facts and legal provisions applicable to the case while deciding specially matters involving capital punishment---Appeal was partly accepted by setting aside the conviction and sentences awarded to accused persons and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh/re-writing of after providing opportunity of hearing to both the…
πŸ”’
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