Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG 2943 = 1962 SLD 2943 = 1962 PLD 573
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 1961 decided on 17th April 1962.  
Presented By: Inamullah and Abdur Rahim Kharal, JJ    
Azizullah K. Sheikh for Appellant.   Muhammad Haleem for Additional A. G. for the State.   Dates of hearing : 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th April 1962.  

ABDUL SAMAD-Appellant  

VERSUS

  THE STATE----Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: S. 309

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 309 --- Different charges need not 6e put separately to assessors-Omission to do so, at best, an irregularity-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 537.   Tooh v. The State P L D 1960 Kar. 1 ref.   Muhammad Sajjad and another v. The State P L D 1961 S C 30 rel.   Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 285-Allendance of assessor not practicable-Not necessary to record a finding-- Failure to do so, at best, an irregularity-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 537: [P L D 1952 Dacca 253 overruled.]   Fazal Muhammad and others v. The Crown P L D 195 4 B J 64 ref.   Kasimali Mira v. The Crown P L D 1952 Dacca 253 overruled.   Muhammad Yousif Soomar v. The Crown P L D 1954 F C 79 rel.   Conviction---When can be based on circumstantial evidence.   Circumstantial evidence must be ascertained with minute care before any conclusion or inference adverse to the accused person is drawn. In dealing with the question of sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to sustain conviction if on the facts proved, no hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused can be suggested conviction of the accused must be upheld.   Fazal Elahi v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 214 and Siraj v. The Crown P L D 1956 F C 123 foll.   JUDGMENT   INAMULLAH, J.-The appellant has been convicted under sections 302 and 363, P. P. C., and sentenced to death under the former and to R. I. for five years under the latter by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge. Besides the appeal the matter is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence passed on the appellant. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are these :-   Mst. Hakimzadi aged about 6 years was living with her parents in a quarter of the Civil Hospital, Hyderabad. Dhanibux, the father of the deceased, was working as a ward boy in the hospital. The appellant Abdul Samad was a Police Constable and was known to Dhanibux since about 1 years before the incident.   On the 9th of August 1960, the day of the incident, the wife of Dhanibux went tovisit her aunt at Tando Agha which is at a distance of about two miles from…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register