Evidence
of the police official, needed independent corroboration---Requirement
of S. 103 , Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, which had made the
recovery of articles doubtful
S. 13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---Keeping arms without licence---Appreciation of evidence---Public/independent witness es not associated with arrest and recovery---Effect---Prosecution/police witness es were contradictory regarding the place from where the accused was arrested and the arm recovered---No public/independent witness es had been associated in the recovery proceedings---Evidence of the police official, needed independent corroboration---Requirement of S. 103 , Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, which had made the recovery of articles doubtful---Impugned conviction and sentence, therefore, was not legal and proper---Joint memo of recovery and arrest of two separate cases had been prepared in the case against present accused and the other accused respectively, and the prosecution, on the basis of same memo, had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the latter, who had been acquitted, and said order of acquittal had not been impugned---Benefit of the acquittal in the connected case on the same joint memo of recovery was extended to present accused, particularly, when the complainant/Investigation Officer had admitted that he had not produced the certificate of District Armour---Complainant had deposed that the case property had been sent to the Ballistic Expert in murder case for report, which was positive, but the prosecution had failed to produce said report, which also created doubt as to the alleged recovery---Case property and the live bullets had neither been produced in the court nor shown to the accused at the time of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.
S. 13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103 ---Keeping arms without licence---Appreciation of evidence---Public/independent witness es not associated with arrest and recovery---Effect---Prosecution/police witness es were contradictory regarding the place from where the accused was arrested and the arm recovered---No public/independent witness es had been associated in the recovery proceedings---Evidence of the police official, needed independent corroboration---Requirement of S. 103 , Cr.P.C. had not been complied with, which had made the recovery of articles doubtful---Impugned conviction and sentence, therefore, was not legal and proper---Joint memo of recovery and arrest of two separate cases had been prepared in the case against present accused and the other accused respectively, and the prosecution, on the basis of same memo, had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the latter, who had been acquitted, and said order of acquittal had not been impugned---Benefit of the acquittal in the connected case on the same joint memo of recovery was extended to present accused, particularly, when the complainant/Investigation Officer had admitted that he had not produced the certificate of District Armour---Complainant had deposed that the case property had been sent to the Ballistic Expert in murder case for report, which was positive, but the prosecution had failed to produce said report, which also created doubt as to the alleged recovery---Case property and the live bullets had neither been produced in the court nor shown to the accused at the time of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 1911 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : DEEDAR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
Side Appellant : DEEDAR AHMED
Side Opponent : State
No comments:
Post a Comment