Case Details

Citation(s)
1965 SLG 4642 = 1965 SLD 4642 = 1965 PLD 204
Dacca High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 1962, decided on 9th June 1964.
Presented By: Sikandar Ali and A. Subhan Choudhuri, JJ
A. H. Mirza for Appellants.   A. Hakim, (Deputy Legal Remembrancer) for the State.

NUR MUHAMMAD alias NUR AHMAD AND OTHERS-Appellants  

VERSUS

  THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 164

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 412

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),   S. 164-Confession Self-exculpatory statements by persons having no direct connection with offence-Not admissible.   (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860),   S. 412-Mere fact that stolen property was recovered from possession of accused's mother at his house-Not sufficient to connect accused with retention or possession of such property-Conviction set aside.   JUDGMENT   SIKANDAR ALI, J.-Appellants (1) Nur Muhammad alias Nur Ahmad, (2) Motleb Khan, (3) Abdur Rouf alias Rob, (4) Khabir Mridha, (5) Serajul Huq, and (6) Amina Khatun are six out of the twelve accused who were placed on trial before Mr. S. J. H. Sikandar, Sessions Judge, Khulna and variously charged under sections 395, 412 and 414 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Ultimately, the learned Judge on a consideration of the evidence on record together with the opinions of the three Assessors who aided him at the trial, convicted appellants Nos. 1 to 3 under section 395 of the Penal Code and the rest together with appellant No. 3 under section 412 of the Penal Code. On such convictions he sentenced the appellants Nos. 1 to. 3 under section 395 of the Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for six years each and appellants Nos. 4 and 5 under section 412 of the Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months each. Appellant No. 6 was sentenced under section 412 to rigorous imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence was awarded to appellant No. 3 under section 412 of the Penal Code. Two others also were convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Judge but they have preferred no appeal. The learned Judge also directed return of different amounts and the gun seized from some of the accused to the agent of the Ralli Brothers Limited, Daulatpur and forfeiture of a sum of Rs. 15 (Exh. L) to the State. As to the rest of the cash seized by the police and exhibited in the case that was directed to be returned to the persons from whose possession the same was seized.   The accused persons were prosecuted for having committed dacoity on the public highway when some employees of the Ralli Brothers Limited, Daulatpur, were on their way to the Local…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register