Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2810 2024 SLD 2810 2024 PCRLJ 499
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1-Q linked with 4-Q of 2022, decided on 16th November, 2023.Dates of hearing: 15th and 16th November, 2023.
Before Iqbal Hameedur Rahman, C.J. and Dr. Syed Muhammad Anwer, J
Ilahi Bakhsh Mengal and Abdul Samad Sasoli for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1-Q of 2022). Ali Ahmed Lehri for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 4-Q of 2022). Jamroz Khan Afridi for the Complainant. Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional Prosecutor General,

SADDAM HUSSAIN and another---Appellants

VS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 17(4)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 391,396

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 367

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)--- ----S. 17(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 391 & 396---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367---Haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Language of judgment---Contents of judgment---Scope---Accused three in number were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during haraabah---Section 391 of the Penal Code, 1860 (the Code) describes the number of accused persons committing the offence of a robbery conjointly committed by five or more persons, however, S. 396 of the Code provides punishment to the accused involving the offence of robbery committed conjointly by five or more persons---So far as, present case was concerned only three persons had been booked for the offence of committing robbery with murder which did not fall within the category of dacoity with murder as per S. 396 of the Code whose requirement of number of accused was five or more---Trial Court while awarding alternative sentence was required to take into consideration the mandatory provisions of law as required under S. 367 of Cr.P.C.---Trial Court was obliged to state the reasons in its judgment as to why death sentence was not passed as required by subsection (5) of S. 367 of Cr.P.C.---Appeal was allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for re-writing of judgment by taking into consideration the mandatory provisions contained in S. 367, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Ismail v. The State 2017 SCMR 713 rel. JUDGMENT IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, C.J.---Through this judgment, we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1-Q of 2022 "Saddam Hussain and another v. The State" and Criminal Appeal No.4-Q of 2022 "Naveed v. The State and others" arising out of one and the same judgment of conviction dated 10th of February, 2022, handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lasbela at Hub. 2. That in the trial of case FIR No.226 of 2020 registered under section 17(4) of The Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979) (Hereinafter called The Ordinance), learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Lasbela at Hub through judgment dated…
🔒
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