| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3237 = 1981 SLD 3237 = 1981 PCRLJ 941 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 779 of 1974, decided on 8th February, 1981.
Presented By: Mazharul Haq, J
Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yameen for the State.
Criminal Revision No. 779 of 1974, decided on 8th February, 1981.
Presented By: Mazharul Haq, J
Kh. Muhammad Sharif for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yameen for the State.
ABDUR RASHID-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE------Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 439
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 439-Revision (criminal)- Benefit of doubt-Stolen tractor allegedly recovered from possession of accused but out of recovery witnesses one not supporting prosecution case while other one a stock-witness-Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.----[Benefit of doubt]. Date of hearing : 8th February, 1981. JUDGMENT Abdur Rashid was convicted under section 411, P. P. C. on 24thSeptember, 1974 and sentenced to six months' R. I. On appeal his sen tence was maintained. He bas come up in revision. 2. Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Sharif cultivated the land of one Ibrahim. They jointly owned a tractor. On the night of occurrence after ploughing the land, they slept near the tractor and when they woke up in the morning they found it missing. They tried to trace it and went to the police station. They found the tractor there which had been recovered by P. W. 4, Farzand Ali, A. S. I. According to the prosecution on 14thNovember, 1973 at about 8 a.m. as he reached near Adda Khurian wala, he saw the petitioner driving the tractor. On suspicion he checked him. Since the petitioner could not satisfy about tractor's ownership, the A. S. I. took the tractor in his possession under section 550, Cr. P. C. Its recovery memo P. C. was attested by P. Ws. Hakim Allah Ditta and Muhammad Akbar. The case was registered, investigated and the accused was sent up for trial. 3. At the trial the accused denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity. He led no evidence in defence. He further, said that he did not know how to drive a tractor. He was asked as to why he had been implicated in this case. He could not explain it at all. But the question for determination would be whether the prosecution…