Case Details

Citation(s)
1953 SLG 90 1953 SLD 90 1953 PLD 34
Lahore High Court
Appeal No. 227 of 1952, decided on 18th November 1951, from the order of P. R. B. May Sessions Judge, Lahore dated the 22nd March 1952, convicting the appellants.
S. A. RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD, JAN, JJ
Kh. Feroz-ud-Din Ahmad for Appellants. S. A. Mahmood, Assistant to the Advocate-General for
Respondent.

JALAL DIN and others

VS

THE CROWN

Law:

Section:

(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872),S. 105-Act done by accident-­Burden of proof-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 80.According to section 80, P. P. C., nothing is an offence which is clone by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. The burden of proving all the conditions mentioned above is on the accused who wishes to bring his case within the purview of section 80, P. P. C. Section 105, Evidence Act, says that when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or provision contained in any other part of the same Code, or fn any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. (b) Adverse possession--- Not constituted by simply lying cattle on laid or fixing pegs in land or using land for stacking fodder. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD JAN, J.---Taj Din, aged 35 years. Siraj Din, aged 25 years, Jalal Din, aged 181 years, sons of Faqir Muhammad, and their sister's husband, Barkat Ali, son of Nabi Bakhsh, aged 18½ years, Arains of village Dogalch, District Lahore, were tried on charges under sections 302 and 307 read with section 34, P. P. C. Jalal Din was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. and, owning to his youth, sentenced to transportation for life. The common intention to kill was held not to have been proved. Barkat Ali was, therefore, convicted under section 324, P. P. C., and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Taj Din and Siraj Din were acquitted. The con­victs have appealed. Ghulam Muhammad, son of Umar Din, has filed two peti­tions for revision. In one he prays that the sentence of Jalal Din should be enhanced to death and adds that Barkat Ali should also have been convicted under section 302, P. P. C., and sentenced to death. Moreover, they should have both been convicted under section 307/34, P. P. C., and suitably punished. In the other he says that the acquittal of Taj Din and Siraj Din is wrong and they should be retried. The…
🔒
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