| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2156 2020 SLD 2156 2020 YLR 1733 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 11-K of 2010, decision Dated: 01-03-2018, hearing Date : 01-03-2018
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE
Munir Ahmed Gilal for Appellant. Amanullah Lashari for
Respondent No. 1. Nazir Ahmed Shar for the
Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Criminal Appeal No. 11-K of 2010, decision Dated: 01-03-2018, hearing Date : 01-03-2018
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE
Munir Ahmed Gilal for Appellant. Amanullah Lashari for
Respondent No. 1. Nazir Ahmed Shar for the
Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
ZAHID HUSSAIN
VS
AJEEB AND OTHERS
Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
Section: 17
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 122
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 148,149,341
(a) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)--- ----S. 17---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 341, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Haraabah, wrongful restraint, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, common object---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Delayed FIR---Identification parade---Failure to give description of accused in crime-report--- Non-production of Magistrate--- Effect--- Prosecution case against accused persons was that they intercepted the complainant and others, snatched the car, cash and copy of identity card---Matter was reported to the police after more than one month---Explanation offered by the prosecution did not appeal to a man of ordinary prudence--- Direct statements of prosecution witnesses though were in line with the case of prosecution set up in the FIR but were not sufficient to prove the charge against the accused in view of non-availability of corroborative evidence---Two of the accused persons were not named in the FIR---Description of said accused persons was also not given in the crime report---Such omission on the part of complainant went to the root of the case, sufficient to brush aside the evidence of identification parade---Non-production of supervising Magistrate was another important fact putting serious cloud upon the evidentiary value of identification parade---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt as concluded by the Trial Court---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Maula Dad alias and others v. Emperor AIR 1925 Lahore 426; State/ Government of Sindh through Advocate-General Sindh, Karachi v. Sobharo 1993 SCMR 585; Sabir Ali alias Fauji v. The State 2011 SCMR 563 and Mansoor Ahmad alias Shahzad alias Sheeri and others v. The State 2012 YLR 2481 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---Information in cognizable cases--- Delayed FIR--- Effect---Prosecution case against accused persons was that they intercepted the complainant and others, snatched the car, cash and copy of identity card---Matter was reported to the police after more than…
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