Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 381 of 1984, heard on 10th February, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 435‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑‑accused allegedly burning boat of complainant‑‑Statements of eye‑witnesses not found to be inspiring confidence---Eye-witnesses not seeing accused persons setting boat on fire, thus, could riot be said to be. Eye- witnesses‑‑Evidence of said eye‑witnesses not relied upon by appellate Court qua co‑accused‑‑No corroborative evidence found on record‑ --Evidence of witness of extra‑judicial confession found to be discrepant‑-- Accused acquitted in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 435‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 Testimony of eye‑witnesses disbelieved by appellate Court qua acquitted co‑accused‑ --Same, held, could not be accepted against accused unless corroborated from unimpeachable source‑‑No corroborative evidence found on record‑ --Accused acquitted in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 435‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 24‑‑Extra‑judicial confession‑‑-Evidentiary value‑‑Extra‑judicial confession held, is weakest type o: evidence.

Petitioner through Jail.

Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th February, 1985.

Nazar Muhammad and his son Talib Hussain were tried by Mr. Ali Abbas Shah, Magistrate First Class, Nurpur, District, Khushab, under section 435, P.P.C. on the allegation that en the night between 24th and 25th January, 1983 they, set ablaze a boat of the value of Rs; 30,000 belonging to Ahmad Bakhh complainant and burnt it to ashes. By judgment, dated 28th January, 1984 both of them were convicted on the said charge and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default in the payment thereof to undergo further R.I. for three months each. They challenged their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Court, Khushab. The appeal of Talib Hussain was accepted while that of Nazar Muhammad was dismissed and his conviction and sentence was maintained. He has filed this revision petition through jail to question the correctness and propriety of the aforesaid orders.

2. At the trial the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Dost Muhammad (P.W.3) and Muhammad Hanif (P.W.5) furnished the ocular account and Dost Muhammad further stated that both the accused had admitted before him and Muhammad Hanif, that they set the boat on fire because its owner had teased them.

3. The statement of the alleged eye‑witnesses, namely, Dost Muhammad and Muhammad Hanif do not inspire confidence. In cross examination both of them admitted that they had not seen the accused persons setting the boat on fire, therefore, they cannot be said to be the eye‑witnesses. Their evidence against co‑accused Talib Hussain was not relied upon by the appellate Court and the same cannot be accepted against the petitioner unless corroborated from an unimpeachable source. There is, however no corroborative evidence on the record.

4. Dost Muhammad P.W. stated that both the accused admitted before him in the presence of Muhammad Hanif P.W. that they had set the boat on fire but there is nothing in the statement of Muhammad Hanif P.W. to show that the accused had made any confession before them. Even extra‑judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence. The prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. For the following reasons this petition is allowed, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

H. A. Revision accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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