Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2016 2018 SLD 2016 2018 MLD 1495
Sindh High Court
Criminal No. S-81 of 2015, decided on 27-10-2017. Date of hearing: 28-07-2017.
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, JUSTICE
Ms. Nasira Shaikh for Appellant. Syed Meeral Shah, Addl. P.G. for the State.

SHEHZAD

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 397---Robbery---Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report was lodged after the delay of thirty four days---Effect---Record showed that incident took place on 1.3.2013 at 11.50 p.m., whereas FIR was lodged on 5.4.2013 at 2.50 p.m.---Complainant injured in the incident went to the hospital for his treatment under police letter---Complainant remained in the hospital for nine days, and came back home, but the FIR was lodged after thirty four days of the incident and twenty five days of his discharge from hospital---No plausible explanation was given for said inordinate delay in lodging FIR---Said delay in lodging FIR was fatal to the prosecution in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 397---Robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that complainant was present at his cabin, when accused and his co-accused duly armed with deadly weapons came there and robbed him of Rs. 45000/- cash and two mobile phones---Accused made fires from his T.T. pistol which hit the complainant at his arm and thereafter, accused ran away along with robbed property---Record showed that incident took place in the night, but neither crime weapon was recovered from the accused nor robbed money or mobile phones were recovered from him---Place of incident was inspected, after thirty four days of the incident and nothing favourable to the prosecution was found there---No independent person was cited as witness in the case although the place of incident was surrounded by the shops and 20/25 persons allegedly gathered there at the time of incident---No effort was shown to have been made by the prosecution to examine any independent person from the locality---Material contradictions were noticed in the evidence led by the prosecution---Medical evidence was not in line with the ocular account---Co-accused persons had already been acquitted by the trial court on the basis of same evidence---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, benefit of which, would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and accused was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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