Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 509 2023 SLD 509 2023 PCRLJ 522
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Appeals Nos. D-82, D-87, Confirmation Case No. 11 and Criminal Appeal No. S-116 of 2019, decided on 23rd September, 2021. Date of hearing: 23rd September, 2021.
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO AND RASHIDA ASAD, JJ
Aslam Pervez Khan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. D-82 and Confirmation Case No. 11 of 2019). Noorul Haq Qureshi along with Saad Salman for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. D-87 and Confirmation Case No. 11 of 2019). Ghulamullah Chang for Appell

DANISH and others-----Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE-----Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 354,376(2),337-j,342,506(2)

Law: Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007

Section: 13(2)

Law: Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Section: 5

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 354, 376(2), 337-J, 342, 506(2)---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance (LXXII of 2007), S. 13(2)---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S. 5---Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, Rape, Causing hurt by means of a poison, Wrongful confinement, Criminal intimidation and Cyber stalking---Appreciation of evidence---Juvenile, trial of---Trial Court framed two separate charges one against adult accused persons and the other against juvenile accused persons---Three female accused persons were acquitted by Trial Court, whereas remaining were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment---Validity---Trial Court committed multiple illegalities while conducting the trial before it---Such illegalities were not curable and had caused serious prejudice to accused persons---High Court with the consent of both the parties set aside against accused persons and matter was remanded to Trial Court for retrial of the case---High Court directed the Trial Court to frame charge afresh and to record evidence of all prosecution witness in both cases---High Court further directed that statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C. of accused persons would be recorded afresh while putting all pieces of evidence brought on record against them by providing a fair opportunity to them to respond the same and also to lead defence evidence if any---Appeal was allowed accordingly. S.A.K Rehmani v. The State 2005 SCMR 364; Azad Khan and another v. The State 2004 YLR 1076 and Jan Muhammad v. The State Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2020 ref. JUDGMENT NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Appellants Danish, Jahanzaib, Waseem, and acquitted accused Mst. Nayab and Mst. Tahreem were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khipro in Sessions Case No.48 of 2015, emanating from Crime No.181/2010 of Police Station Khipro; whereas juvenile accused/appellants Suhail and acquitted accused Ms. Farasat were also tried by the same trial Judge in Sessions Case No.49 of 2015 in same crime for offence under sections 354, 376(2), 337-J, 342, 506(2), P.P.C. read with section 12(2), PEC Ordinance, 2007 After regular trial, the learned trial Court vide its…
🔒
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