Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 438,506(2),337-H(2),34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 345(6)

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Rule of consistency---Scope---Rule of consistency demanded that if the evidence of prosecution had been disbelieved in respect of a co-accused, the same could not be relied upon for convicting other accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 438, 506(2), 337-H(2) , 34---Mischief committed by fire or explosive substance, criminal intimidation, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Acquittal of accused---Rule of consistency---Applicability---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused were present in cattle pond of complainant, they were encircled by the complainant party and caught hold of accused, while co-accused by making aerial firing and extending threats made their escape good---Record showed that acquitted accused were fully implicated by the complainant and two alleged eye-witnesses of the incident, rather said two accused were assigned harsher role than the accused, which was evident from the evidence of all three witnesses---Accused was also alleged to have made aerial firing---Despite that those two accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court by extending them benefit of doubt, whereas present accused had been convicted which seemed to be in clear violation of ‘rule of consistency’. Umar Farooque v. State 2006 SCMR 1605; Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2012 SCMR 440 rel. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 345(6)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 438, 506(2), 337-H(2) , 34---Mischief committed by fire or explosive substance, criminal intimidation, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Compounding of offence---Compromise between the parties---Conviction and sentence, effect upon---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused were present in cattle pond of complainant, they were encircled by the complainant party and caught hold of accused, while co-accused by making aerial firing and extending threats made their escape good---Record showed that…

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