Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 374 1984 SLD 374 1984 PLD 230
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 1978, decided on 21st May, 1984
ABDUL KHALIQ KHAN AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN KAIF, JJ
Khawaja Nazir Ahmad Asstt. A.G. for the State. Mufti Muhammad Idris and Abdul Hamid for
Respondent

THE STATE--Appellant

VS

ABDUL AZIZ AHD 2 othersACCUSED--RespondentS

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- ---S. 417-Penal Code (XLV of 1860). S. 302/34-Appeal against acquittal-Points to be borne in mind by Courts in deciding appeal against acquittal stated.-[Appeal against acquittal]. Sate .v. Amir Ali and others P L D 1967 Kar. 440 ; A I R 1934 P C 227 and P L D 1964 S C 422 fol. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- ---Ss. 302/34 & 114-Murder--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417-Appeal against acquittal-Abetment-Lalkara---Mere raising "Lalkara" by accused person in a case of murder, held. was not sufficiently incriminating so as to constitute basis of conviction for abetment-Trial Court to decide question on appreciation of all facts including degree of interest in crime possessed by person who shouted Lalkara, and part he played in background of the affair.-[Abetment-­Appeal against acquittal. Abdul Aziz v. Bashir Ahmed P L D 1966 S C 658 and Chiragh Pin's case PLD 1967SC340ref (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- S. 114--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Appeal against acquittal--Abetment-Mere presence at scene of crime being sufficient overt act to support a conviction by application of S. 114, P. P. C.--Shouting of Lalkara may, in such circumstance, would have effect as a further overt act of abetment-Proof of a person shouting a Lalkara, is not enough to constitute a reasonable ground for thinking that be has been guilty of abetment of such crime without a full appreciation of evidence relating to background of a crime and its actual commission.-[Abetment-Appeal against acquittal]. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ---Ss. 302/34 & 114-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417-Appeal against acquittal-No active role attributed to acquitted accused-Prosecution not suggesting any prompting by accused which resulted in any further action-Subsequent improvements made in Court statements by acquitted accused proving of no help to prosecu­tion-Held, acquitted accused starts with a double presumption in his favour, firstly that it was for prosecution to make out its case and until it did so beyond reasonable doubt accused must be presumed to be innocent and secondly, accused having succeeded in securing an…
🔒
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