Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 269 1971 SLD 269 1971 SCMR 432
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1969, decision dated: 12th May 1971
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI AND SAJJAD AHMAD, 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

HAKIM ALI AND 4 others--Appellants

VS

THE STATE AND another--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal trial-Onus always lies on prosecution to prove its case Prosecution to succeed on strength of its own case and not on weakness of defence-High Court finding that prosecution had completely failed to establish its own case and finding further that occurrence was due to sudden flaring up of fight between complainant party and accused-Merely because complainant party got worst of fight, High Court, held, not right in holding that accused in -circumstance must have been aggressor-Defence, in criminal trial, need not establish innocence of accused-Prosecution version if doubtful, benefit of doubt must be given to accused-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. If the Court finds that both sides came out armed prepared for a fight and engaged in a free ht in a public place, the Court would clearly misdirect self in taking the view that because the complainant side got the worst of the fight the accused must have been the aggressors and, therefore, they should be held to be guilty. This would be a completely wrong approach. In such cases although no question of either side claiming the right of private defence arises yet the culpability of the participants in the fight has to be assessed on an individual basis. Each person participating in such a fight is responsible for his own individual acts. The onus in a criminal case always lies on the prosecution. It never shifts to the accused. It is wrong, therefore, to think that because "the accused persons did not tell the whole truth" the prosecution must succeed. The prosecu­tion has always to succeed upon the strength of its own case and not the weakness of the defence case. It is not necessary for the defence to establish the innocence of the accused persons. It is enough for it if it has succeeded in casting a serious doubt upon the prosecution case. The benefit of that doubt must go to the accused. Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah P L D 1962 S C 502 ref. (b) Criminal trial-Motive-Prosecution though not called upon to establish motive in every case, yet once it has set up a motive and failed to establish-Prosecution must suffer consequence and not defence-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. It is not necessary…
🔒
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