Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,324,353,427

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 367

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 353, 427 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief causing damage to amount of fifty rupees, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Judgment, contents of---Case had not been decided in accordance with the mandatory provisions of S. 367, Cr.P.C.---Effect---In the present case, Trial Court had framed the charge against the accused/appellants for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 324, 353, 427 & 34, P.P.C.---Trial Court was required to decide fate of every single charge (offence) which could, legally, either be in acquittal or conviction from such charge (offence)---Record showed that the Trial Court mentioned nothing about offence, punishable under S. 302, P.P.C.---Accused/appellant though was specifically charged and tried for such offence, yet legal presumption would be nothing but that there came no legal 'disposal' for charged offence of S. 302, P.P.C.---Trial Court had terminated the case by recording the impugned ---Such act or omission, was not worth appreciating nor could legally be approved because all the jointly charged and tried offences were legally required to be determined through one single because the law permitted only a single trial of one for an offence---Said glaring illegality could not be said to be result of some oversight because while writing a full the author thereof was believed to have carefully gone through all available record else there could be no legal decision/ "---High Court observed that if it was believed that Trial Court did go through the record then failure in responding to charge for offence of murder could be nothing but a deliberate action or knowing omission---Leaving an offence undetermined, in disregard of commandment of S. 367, Cr.P.C., would always be sufficient for setting aside the impugned conviction and retrial of the case---Trial Court from its conduct had proved to be either incompetent/negligent or that impugned was result of some hidden motive---Case was remanded for decision afresh by setting aside conviction…

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