Find a Lawyer

Hudood Criminal Appeal No. J‑3 of 1979, heard on 16th March 1980.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---

---‑S. 412 read with S. 265‑E and Offence Against Property (Enforce ment of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss. 13 & 14‑Appeal (criminal) ‑ Accused voluntarily making judicial confession and further leading to discovery of stolen property‑Conviction record ed on plea of guilty of accused ‑ Conviction, held, justified in view of provisions of S. 265‑E, Cr. P. C.‑Interference declined, in circumstances.‑[Appeal (criminal)].

Appellant in person.

Murlaza Hussain for the State.

Date of hearing : 16th March 1980.

Heard Jamil Ahmad who is produced from jail. He states that his mother has died, mercy may be shown to him. He also states that he pleaded guilty because he had been told by the Police that he may be sentenced to light imprisonment if he pleaded guilty.

The relevant facts are stated below in the language of the trial Judge Briefly stated the prosecution story as disclosed in the F. I. R. is that complainant Madan Lal has a shop at Mirpurkhas. During the night time he used to close the shop, apply lock on its door and go away to his house. On 17‑3‑1979 at about 7 a.m. when he came to shop and opened the lock he found that all the things in the shop were lying scattered and there was a breach in the roof of the shop. He called P. Ws. Dur Muhammad and Fakir Muhammad and Chowkidar and informed them about it. They also noted shod footprints of the two thieves behind the shop. On verification article worth Rs. 370.1.5 were found missing. The complainant went and lodged F. I. R. with A. S. 1. Gulistan Khan. The A. S. 1. continued to hold usual investigation till on 22‑2‑1979 accused Jamil Ahmad was arrested red‑handed in Crime No. 33 of 1979 (Sessions Case No. 25 of 1979). Jamil Ahmad‑ admitted having committed theft in the shop of Madanlal and gave such a judicial confession before the Mukhtiarkar. He also made discovery of the stolen property. After complet ing the investigation the S. H. O. challaned the accused as shown above.

A charge was framed against the accused under section 13/14 of Hudood Ordinance VI of 1979. The accused has pleaded guilty to the charge and has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court."

The learned Judge accepted the plea of guilty of the accused and convicted him under section 13‑14 of Hudood Ordinance VI of 1979 and sentenced 1 him to suffer R. I. for 2 years. The sentence was however to run after completion of sentence awarded in Sessions Case No. 25‑79.

The appellant has not pointed out any defect in the trial and Mr. Murtaza Hussain appearing for the State has supported the conviction. I find that the conviction was justified in view of the provision of section 265‑E of the Cr. P. C. I would, therefore, maintain the conviction and sentence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.