Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 17(3)

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 337-A(iii),337-L(ii),392

Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)---.--- ---.---S. 17(3)---.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(iii), 337-L(ii) & 392---.---Haraabah and robbery---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Benefit of doubt---.---F.I.R. and statement of complainant was based on hearsay---.---Neither the complainant was an eye-witness nor his statement was relevant for the purpose of assessing ocular account of the incident---.---F.I.R. had been lodged after 3 months of occurrence without any plausible explanation---.---Despite the fact that the F.I.R. was not direct narration of the injured, it had not specifically mentioned that accused had inflicted butt blows to the injured---.---Injured prosecution witness in his examination-in-chief had not specifically stated about causing injuries to him by accused---.---Injured witness though had previous acquaintance with the accused but he had not levelled allegation of causing injuries to him by the accused---.---Both the injured witnesses had narrated the incident in different manner with different particulars of the transaction; they were not consistent about the number of assailants and the role played by each culprit---.---Place of vardat had been inspected about 3 months and 25 days after the incident and no incriminating evidence was collected from there---.---Statement of medico-legal officer and the contents of medico-legal certificate would not ipso facto establish guilt against accused in absence of confidence-inspiring evidence sufficiently connecting accused with the commission of offence---.---None of the prosecution witnesses had ever said that accused had robbed articles and money from them---.---Co-accused had been acquitted on the same set of evidence---.---Incident had taken place near Dargah and in presence of persons at Dargah, no independent witness had been examined by the prosecution to establish the offence---.---Smell of professional jealousy between accused and injured was also traceable from the evidence---.---Commission of offence by accused was doubtful and by extending benefit of doubt, impugned and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was set aside, in…

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