Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 265-K,417

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-K & 417---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Allegation against accused was that he, along with co-accused, made firing upon the complainant of FIR, who received injuries---Injured reported the matter to the police, later on, he succumbed to the injuries---Local police after registration of case submitted challan against all the four accused---One of the accused faced the trial, while other accused absconded---Trial Court after conclusion of trial, acquitted the said accused, while rest of the accused were declared as proclaimed offenders---Later on, the present accused/respondent was arrested and supplementary challan against him was submitted---Trial Court after trial, acquitted the accused under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Allegedly, accused was charged in a promptly lodged report and there was sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence available against him, but inspite of that the Trial Court acquitted him under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Record showed that four accused, who were brothers inter se, had been charged for indiscriminate firing at the deceased, out of whom, one accused, had been acquitted by the Trial Court---No appeal was filed by the prosecution against the said acquittal, as such, the same had gained the finality---Record transpired that the role of the accused/respondent was similar to that of his co-accused, who had been acquitted of the charge---Prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence, but their statements had already been disbelieved by the Trial Court in the previous trial, which had gained the finality---Admittedly, accused remained absconded, but abscondence alone could not be made basis for conviction, therefore Trial Court had properly exercised its jurisdiction under the provision of S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that the acquittal order was not the result of misreading or non-reading of any material evidence, thus appeal was dismissed accordingly. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11; 2002 SCMR 1855; 1996 SCMR…

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