| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5174 = 1966 SLD 5174 = 1966 PLD 269 |
Dacca High Court
Appeal No. 363 of 1964, decided on 28th January 1965.
Presented By: A. K. M. Baquer and A. Subhan Choudhuri, JJ
Fateh Muhammad v. The State P L D 1961 Lab. 212 ; Grandhe Sarabhayya and others A I R 1943 Mad. 408 and Umadasi Dasi v. The King Emperor 28 C W N 1046 ref. Abdul Hamid for Appellant. B. N. Chowdhury with Kaiseruddin Ahmed for the State.
Appeal No. 363 of 1964, decided on 28th January 1965.
Presented By: A. K. M. Baquer and A. Subhan Choudhuri, JJ
Fateh Muhammad v. The State P L D 1961 Lab. 212 ; Grandhe Sarabhayya and others A I R 1943 Mad. 408 and Umadasi Dasi v. The King Emperor 28 C W N 1046 ref. Abdul Hamid for Appellant. B. N. Chowdhury with Kaiseruddin Ahmed for the State.
SHAMA alias JINNAT ALI-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 109,420,467
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 109, 420 & 467-Principal offender acquitted - Abettor thereby not necessarily entitled to acquittal. There is no general rule that an abettor charged with having abetted the principal in the commission of an offence, cannot be convicted if the principal is acquitted. There may be a case where an abettor on his own confession or plea of guilty to the charge may be convicted of the offence of abetment although the principal is acquitted for insufficient evidence. Another type of such case may be where it is held by the Appellate Court that the substantive offence was committed by an unknown person or persons in consequence of abetment of the culprit. Where, however, the evidence against the abettor was similar to the evidence against the acquitted principal accused with slight and negligible difference by the same set of witnesses, it was held that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges of abetment of the substantive offence by the abettor and his convic tion was, therefore, set aside. JUDGMENT A. SUBHAN CHOUDHURI, J.-Appellant Shama alias Jinna Ali was placed on his trial in the Court of ex officio Special Judge, Dacca, along with accused Abdul Jalil Khan. The learned Special Judge convicted Abdul Jalil Khan under section 419 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 9 of Act XI of 1958 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 1,050 in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months more. He also convicted him under sections 467 and 420 of the Penal Code and section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947, but passed no separate sentence thereunder. He also convicted the appellant under section 467/109 and 420/109 of the Penal Code and section 5 (2) of Act XI of 1958 and similarly sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 1,050 in default to rigorous imprison ment for six months more under section 420/109, P. P. C. read with section 9 of Act XI of 1958, no separate sentence having been passed under section 467/109, P. P. C. and section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. The prosecution case- was that accused Abdul JAW Khan…