| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 772 1974 SLD 772 1974 PCRLJ 380 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1970, 18th December, 1972
TUFAIL ALI A. REHMAN, C.J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1970, 18th December, 1972
TUFAIL ALI A. REHMAN, C.J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Qaisar And Another
VS
The State
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Place, Maintain, Set Aside, Dispute, Offences, Fine, Parties, Government, Prosecution, Information, Delay, Investigation, Testimony, Money, Land, Conviction, Possession, Theft, Evidence Result: Appeal allowed JUDGMENT The o appellants in this case were originally charged under sections 3941 44, 325, >24, 323 and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code and l3-I) of the Arms Act. They have, however, been convicted of offences punishable under sections 452, 325 and 324 read with section 34, F. P. C. And for these three offence have been sentenced to R. I. For two years and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default six months' R. I., three years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 500 in default of R. I. For six months more and one year's R. I. Respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The two, appellants are brothers mater se and the nephews of the first informant Saifal. It is the prosecution case that the father-in-law of this Saial one Dur Mohammad by name had acquired about 25 acres of land from Government and spent about its. 600 on its development. This land he had put in the possession of the appellants and had entered into an arrange ment with them the details of which are not very clear and substantially .A would seem that the three were to be in partnership. However, the appellants refused not only to pay their share of the money spent on the development but also to give to Dur Mohammed his share in the yield oh the land. This resulted, quite naturally, in strained relations between the two inasmuch as Dur Mohammed was constantly making a demand for his share which the appellants were avoiding or refusing. This part of the case is admitted by the appellants but they add also that there were differences between themselves and the complainant party on account of matrimonial affairs; this allegation of theirs, has not been established nor even been detailed. The complainant Saifal lived along with his father-in-law in a village which was named for Dur Mohammad in his own house along with his wife P. W. Mst. Janai axed hit father-in-law Mst. Hurmat. On the night of occurrence which is the night between the 15th and 16th of August, 1968 for some reason…
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