Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 154,161,164,173,342,000

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,324

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Interference---Scope and criteria---Criteria to interfere in against acquittal was not same as against the cases involving conviction---Scope of interference in appeal against acquittal was narrow and limited for the reason that in an acquittal, the presumption of innocence was significantly added to the rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused would be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty---Court could interfere in of acquittal if the same was shown to be perverse, passed in violation of law, suffering from errors of grave misreading or non-reading of evidence---Heavy burden lay on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence, which accused had earned and attained on account of acquittal. Muhammad Zafar and another v. Rustam and others 2017 SCMR 1639 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution, primarily was bound to establish guilt against accused without shadow of reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence for conviction of accused---If from the evidence on record it could be concluded that the charges so impugned against accused, had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt then accused would become entitled to acquittal---Star witnesses, in the present case, were four including the complainant, who was also injured witness, but prosecution had failed to produce complainant in support of its case---Remaining witnesses were chance witnesses as they were not residents of same locality---None of said eye-witnessed, had supported each other on any material aspect of the case---Testimony of said witnesses was not only carrying contradictions, but was fully pregnant with improvements, which had shattered the veracity of their evidence---Evidence of said witnesses, was rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court while recording impugned , as their evidence was not confidence inspiring…

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