| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1136 2004 SLD 1136 2004 SCMR 1185 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal Nos. 430 of 2001 and Criminal Petition No.293 of 2001, decision dated: 14-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 18-10 2001 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 1982)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ
Ihsanul Haq, Ch. Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, Advocate Supreme, Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate on-Record for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2001). Malik Rabnawaz Noon, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zaidi,
Criminal Appeal Nos. 430 of 2001 and Criminal Petition No.293 of 2001, decision dated: 14-04-2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 18-10 2001 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No.88 of 1982)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ
Ihsanul Haq, Ch. Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, Advocate Supreme, Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate on-Record for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2001). Malik Rabnawaz Noon, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, M.A. Zaidi,
IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN and others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---S. 417 Appeal against acquittal Appreciation of evidence -Principles Accused after his acquittal by Trial Court enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with acquittal appeal under S.417 Cr.P.C. are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption Two views, undoubtedly, are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, Court should follow the recognized principles, for interference in the acquittal . Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 417 Appeal against acquittal Principles Appellate Court while deciding the acquittal appeal under S.417, Cr.P.C. can interfere in the impugned order where the Trial Court has either disregarded material evidence, misread such evidence or received the same illegally. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1960) -- S. 302 Appraisal of evidence F.I.R. was intentionally delayed and was lodged after preliminary inquiries and consultations Complainant had not challenged the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court and it was on State appeal that the accused had been convicted and sentenced ¬ocular evidence not only had material contradictions, but also credibility of the same had been shaken badly in cross examination ¬Recovery of the crime weapon from the accused was highly doubtful ¬Dispatch of crime empties, and the weapon to the Forensic Science Laboratory after an unexplained considerable delay had deprived the recovery of the incriminating articles of its corroborative value ¬Medical evidence being in the nature of confirmatory evidence could not be considered corroborative evidence No incriminating evidence was available on record to support the eye witness account and the same could not be safely relied upon High Court had interfered with the acquittal of accused contrary to the principles laid down by Superior Courts Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and…
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