Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1143 2004 SLD 1143 2004 SCMR 1209
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.45 of 2002, decision dated: 29-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 20 9 2001 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Criminal Appeal No.434/T of 2000)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents

QAMAR ZAMAN

VS

WASEEM IQBAL and 5 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 396/149, 460, 148 & 411 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Appeal against acquittal by High Court High Court after having applied its conscious mind had rightly disbelieved the evidence of extra judicial confession and the incriminating recoveries Witness of extra judicial confession was not in a commanding position so as to influence local police with a view to help the accused Prosecution story regarding making the extra judicial confession voluntarily ran counter to the natural probabilities and showed that the same was in fact not made at all Recovery of the golden articles said to be belonging to the deceased being of the common pattern were neither got identified in accordance with law nor were exhibited in the trial, as such the same was not reliable Consideration warranting interference in appeals against acquittal and in appeals against conviction being quits different, Supreme Court could not interfere unless the grounds on which the High Court had acquitted the accused were not supportable .from the evidence on record or the of acquittal was perverse and reasons thereof were artificial and. ridiculous No case was made out for interference in the impugned Leave to appeal was refused to complainant by Supreme Court accordingly. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3) Appeal against acquittal Interference by Supreme Court Principles Considerations warranting interference in appeals against acquittal and in appeals against conviction were quite different ¬Supreme Court could not interfere unless the grounds on which the High Court had acquitted the accused were not supportable from the evidence on record or the of acquittal was perverse and reasons thereof were artificial and ridiculous. ORDER ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J. Through this criminal petition, petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 20 9 2001 whereby a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi allowed Criminal Appeal No.434/T of 2000, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondents and acquitted them of the charges. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of the instant…
🔒
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