Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3159 2022 SLD 3159 2022 YLR 2042
High Court (AJ&K)
Appeal No. 2 of 2022, decided on 29th April, 2022.
CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J
Raja Muhammad Mehfooz for Appellant. Muhammad Khalil Ghazi, A.A.G. for the respondents.

MUHAMMAD ILYAS

VS

STATE through Advocate General/Additional Advocate General and another

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 458

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 458---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act (XII of 1985), S. 20---Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint---Haraabah liable to tazir---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with co-accused had designed and plotted dacoity in the house of the complainant---Prosecution case revolved around the central axis of recovery of the stolen articles---Statements of marginal witnesses of recovery memo. and complainant had put considerable question marks on the whole prosecution story---Marginal witnesses had admitted that the recovery memo was prepared and signed at the police station---Stand taken by the prosecution that stolen articles were recovered at the indication of accused from his house was blatantly refuted and denied---After excluding the recoveries of stolen articles on the indication of accused nothing remained with the prosecution to justify the conviction of accused---Court below had fallen in error while convicting the accused because prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused to hilt and to prove its case beyond shadow of rational or plausible doubt---Accused was neither nominated in the FIR nor identification parade was conducted thus the sole evidence relied upon by the prosecution was recoveries of stolen articles which was not prepared in accordance with the required standard that could justify or vindicate conviction---Designing and planning to commit the dacoity amongst the accused persons was not proved---Co-accused was acquitted by the court below while discrediting the evidence harvested by the prosecution, however, on the basis of same and identical evidence the accused was convicted which was unjustified---Appeal was accepted and the accused was acquitted of the charges, in circumstances. PLJ 2019 SC 265 ref. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---Benefit of a slightest doubt has to be resolved in favour of an accused not ex-gratia but as a matter of right. 2014 SCR 351 and 2017 SCR 428 ref. JUDGMENT CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED,…
🔒
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