Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 774 1993 SLD 774 1993 SCMR 1628
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr. Appeal No. 292 of 1992, decision dated: 21st April, 1993
SAAD SAOOD, JAN, SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND FAZAL ILAHI KLAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ZAHEER DIN

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--S. 302---Burden of proof---Fact that accused failed to prove his plea raised in defence can neither reduce the burden of the prosecution to prove the case against him beyond all reasonable doubt nor it could be taken into consideration as a proof in support of the prosecution case. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(2)(a)---Acquittal of accused by Trial Court being neither perverse nor based on misreading of evidence, High Court was not justified in interfering with the acquittal of Trial Court simply because it had taken another view of the evidence in the case---High Court's was consequently set aside and that of Trial Court was restored. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 185 (2) (a)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Appeal against acquittal before Supreme Court---Guiding principles. Notwithstanding the diversity of facts and circumstances of each case, amongst others, some of the important and consistently followed principles can be clearly visualised from the cited and other cases-law on the question of setting aside an acquittal by this Court. They are as follows:-- (1) In an appeal against acquittal the Supreme Court would not on principle ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of Court acquitting the accused. This approach is slightly different than that in an appeal against conviction when leave is granted only for re-appraisement of evidence which then is undertaken so as to see that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused. This difference of approach is mainly conditioned by the fact that the acquittal carries with it the two well-accepted presumptions: One initial, that, till found guilty, the accused is innocent; and two that again after the trial a Court below confirmed the assumption of innocence. (2) The acquittal will not carry the second presumption and will also thus lose the first one if on points having conclusive effect on the end result the Court below: (a) disregarded material evidence; (b)…
🔒
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