Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,170,342,457

Law: Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)

Section: 13

Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979

Section: 17(3)

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 457, 170 & 342/34--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, (VII of 1979), S. 17(3)--Recovery of/ cash amount cannot be considered as incriminating evidence on mere assertion that respondent had stated same to be their share of looted amount, unless, said recoveries are proved by other independent means--Neither numbers nor any identification marks upon notes were mentioned by appellant PW, as such it would not be safe to hold that amount in question as looted amount--Transpired from evidence on record as well as conceded by both counsel for appellants that Call Data Record (CDR) in no manner connect respondents and does not help prosecution to substantiate charges, henceforth, placing CDR is nothing but futile exercise on part of prosecution--Trial Court has thoroughly discussed evidence adduced by prosecution and has rendered impugned herein on basis of logical and legal reasons, not suffering from any perversity, illegality, misreading and non-reading of evidence--Judgment impugned has been examined by us thoroughly in view of evidence on record, which is neither artificial nor speculative, compelling us to interfere with--Evidence on record is insufficient, holding respondents guilty of charges--Obviously after earning acquittal, presumption of dual innocence comes into play, which restrains us not to interfere unless grave illegality or perversity is observed, resulting into miscarriage of justice, which Court have not found--Appeals were dismissed. Interference in a Judgment-- ----It is well settled dicta that yardstick for interference in a of acquittal are entirely different from that of a of conviction--Judgment of acquittal can only be interfered, if conclusion drawn are speculative, arbitrarily, artificial and a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence--It cannot be interfered merely for reason that another view of evidence is possible. 2013 SCMR 1602, PLD 1985 SC 11 & PLD 2011 SC 554, ref. Delay in FIR-- ----Legal proposition--Mere delay in lodging an FIR is not fatal but we are also aware that in a case, where FIR is lodged with delay without any plausible and…

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