Find a Lawyer

HC MUHAMMAD KHAN versus THE STATE

22 Section 223 public escape from confinement or detention due to negligence of a civil servant ??? Value of evidence - The benefit of the doubt sec The prosecution's case was that a professional prisoner was admitted to the hospital due to urinary pain. Had escaped from the hospital, the appellant (police officer) was on duty. The accused appellants were declared negligent as a result of which they managed to escape - the crime in which the accused appellants were convicted. Twice, it was said that government employees are obliged to keep the prisoner in prison, and that escape must be the negligence of the policemen. Is caused by ??? In such cases, the prosecution must bear the burden of proving that the escape was not the result of their negligence ?????? In the present case, nothing was brought on record. In connection with the duty of escaped prisoner or the accused applicant at that location, the duties of the police personnel, including jail, were recorded under the relevant records record The prosecution needed to present such entries in the record No such entry or evidence was presented proof Stability could not be sustained in the absence of such evidence - such circumstances proved that the prosecution's case was not free of any doubt, which would have benefited the accused's appellants. The case will be resolved in favor of the accused by setting aside the crime and conviction recorded by the trial court. They were acquitted [PP 724, 725] A & C

PLD 2017 Sindh 723

Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J

HC MUHAMMAD KHAN and 3 others—Appellants

versus

THE STATE—Respondent

Criminal Revision Application No.S-83 of 2014, decided on 5th June, 2017.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of I860)—

—S. 223—Escape from confinement or custody due to negligence of public servant—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt— Prosecution case was that an undertrial prisoner was admitted in the hospital due to urinal pain, who escaped from the hospital, when the accused-appellant (Police officials) were on duty—Accused appellants were held guilty of negligence which resulted into the escape—Offence wherein the accused-appellants had been convicted was of two folds, first that said public servants were bound to keep the prisoner in confinement and that the escape must have been due to the negligence of said police officials—Prosecution, in such cases, must establish that burden was upon the officials to disprove that escape was not the result of their negligence—In the present case, nothing was brought on record with regard to duty of accused-applicants over the escaped undertrial prisoner or at such place—Duties of police officials including that of jail were regulated under entries in the relevant record—Prosecution was required to produce such entries on record but no such entry or proof had been produced—In absence of such proof conviction could not be sustained—Circumstances established that case of prosecution was not free from doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused-appellants—Accused-appellants were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. [pp. 724, 725] A & C

(b) Criminal trial—

—Benefit of doubt—Principle—Single infirmity creating reasonable doubt was sufficient for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. [p. 724] B

Muhammad Luqman v. The State PLD 1970 SC 10 rel.

Dilbar Khan Laghari for Appellants.

Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th June, 2017.

tax advocates from Jhudo lawyer