Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 17

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 395

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 412,561-A,410

(a) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)--- ----S. 17---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.395---Haraabah---Dacoity--Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delayed FIR---Contradictory evidence---Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus---Scope---Accused was booked as preparator for commission of an offence under S. 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---FIR was delayed for which there was no explanation, whatsoever---Initially the complainant had not proposed to visit the police station rather had approached Nek Mards of the area and subsequently, he had filed application before Justice of Peace---No evidence was available to prove the fact that the complainant had approached the Nek Mards and he was advised not to lodge the FIR---In the absence of such evidence the inference could not be ruled out that the delayed FIR was lodged after consultation and deliberation just to concoct and fabricate a story and rope males and females in the case---Prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on material particulars---Evidence on record was misread, misconstrued, mis-constructed and the facts were mis-appreciated which had resulted in grave miscarriage of justice---Trial Court had acquitted one co-accused and the other was acquitted by the Federal Shariat Court---In such view of the matter, the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court were not sustainable as the law of the land was falsus in uno falsus in omnibus---Appeal against conviction was accepted and the accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 412 561-A---Appeal---Dismissal of appeal for non-appearance of accused---Restoration of appeal---Scope---Appeal of the accused was dismissed due to his non-appearance---Accused, after being arrested, filed another appeal---Second appeal was not competent; firstly, because the order passed by the Court though not a on merits but still occupied the field; secondly, Court could not hear appeal against its own order/ ; thirdly, appeal was hopelessly barred by time---Since the accused, after obtaining bail had remained fugitive of law, had not surrendered rather…

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