Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 162 2021 SLD 162 2021 MLD 149
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 46 of 2018, decision Dated: 27th February, 2020.
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Hanif Qureshi, Saathi M. Ishaq, Sarwat Israr and Sanaur Rehman for Appellant. Syed Mehmood Alam Rizvi and Zakir Leghari for
Respondent No.1.

MUHAMMAD NAEEM

VS

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KHAN AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 320

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 417

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 320---Qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Complainant and his witnesses had nowhere deposed that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of accused the accident had taken place---No authentic oral as well as documentary evidence was produced by the prosecution to connect the accused with the commission of offence---Evidence brought on record suffered from material deficiencies, procedural lapses and lack of corroboration amongst the prosecution witnesses lacking connection to prove actus reus and mens rea---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Fazil v. Bashir Ahmed and another 2009 SCMR 1382 and Mst. Anwar Begum v. Akhtar Hussain Kaka and 2 others 2017 SCMR 1710 distinguished. Zulfiqar Ali v. Imtiaz and others 2019 SCMR 1315 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Scope---Appeal against acquittal has distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because double presumption of innocence is attached in the later case---Order of acquittal can only be interfered with, if it is found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on mis-reading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and lead to gross miscarriage of justice---Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice is not enough for interference---Order/ of acquittal gives rise to strong presumption of innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order---While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should be given to the findings of the lower courts, whereby accused was exonerated from commission of crime. Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Fahim Afzal 1998 SCMR 1281 and Jehangir v. Aminullah and others 2010 SCMR 491 ref. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Scope---Whenever there is doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must got to him and Court would never come to the rescue of…
🔒
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