Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 196 and Criminal Revision No.214 of 1979, heard 11th May, 1985.
----S. 302/34‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439‑‑Acquittal‑ Revision against‑‑Trial Court having applied its conscious mind to all categories of evidence produced by prosecution and having given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving motive, evidence of extra‑judicial confession and last seen evidence‑‑No exception held, could be taken to order of acquittal‑‑Order of acquittal upheld.
‑‑‑Ss. 201 & 302/34‑‑Accused and his co‑accused acquitted of charge of murder‑‑Accused convicted under section 201, P.P.C.‑‑Case being of joint pointation of place from where dead body of deceased was recovered by prosecution witnesses‑‑Pointation being joint, recovery of dead body, held, could not be attributed to accused alone‑‑No case of causing any evidence of commission of offence to disappear by accused made out from prosecution evidence‑‑No satisfactory basis of upholding conviction of accused found‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Muhammad Afzal Qureshi for Appellant.
Furrukh Hamayum for the State.
Date of hearing: 11th May, 1985.
This Criminal Appeal No. 196/79 by Bashir Ahmad appellant and connected Criminal Revision No. 214/79 by Hadayat Ali petitioner against acquittal of Bashir Ahmad appellant and Saeed Ahmad of the charge under section 302, P.P.C. arise from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge Faisalabad, whereby he on 31‑1‑1979 while acquitting Saeed Ahmad convicted Bashir Ahmad under section 201, P.P.C. on the charge of having caused the evidence of the commission of offence disappeared and sentenced him to 5 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000, in default thereof one year's R.I. I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the recovery of the dead body having been effected on the joint pointation of the appellant and the acquitted co‑accused was of no consequence and as such the appellant could not have been convicted under section 201, P.P.C. On the other hand, Muhammad Nazir Janjua, the learned counsel for the petitioner in connected criminal revision argued that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence on record to exclude all the hypothesis of the innocence of the accused/ respondents. Furthermore, the prosecution produced Manzoor Ahmad P.W. 11, and Abdul Hameed P.W. 12. Muhammad Ibrahim P.W.13 and Hadayatullah P.W. 14 who have given the last seen evidence and that Ilyas Masih P. W. 8, Lai Din, Zulfiqar Ali, M. M. P. A., P. Ws. have proved the recovery of the dead body of Boota at the instance of Bashir Ahmad and Saeed Ahmad accused.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parries in the light of the record. I find that the learned trial Court has applied its conscious mind to all the categories of evidence produced by the prosecution and has given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving the motive, evidence of extra‑judicial confession and last seen evidence furnished by Manzoor Ahmad P.W. 11, Abdul Hameed, P.W. 12, Muhammad Ibrahim and Hadayatullah P.Ws. and as such, no exception can be taken. As far the conviction of Bashir Ahmad appellant under section 201, P.P.C. I find that the same also could not have been recorded by the learned trial Court inasmuch as, it was a case of joint pointation of the place from where the dead body of Muhammad Boota was recovered by Ilyas Masih P.W. 8 and Lal Din P.W. 13. The pointation being joint, the recovery of the dead body cannot be attributed to Bashir Ahmad appellant alone. The statement of Ilyas Masih P.W. 8, B Lai Din P.W. 13 and Zulfiqar Ali P.W. 17 accepted at its face value, no case of causing any evidence of the commission of the offence disappeared by Bashir Ahmad appellant is made out.
4. For what has been stated above, there being no satisfactory basis for upholding the conviction of Bashir Ahmad and while giving him benefit of doubt, he is acquitted of the charge. There being no force in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.
H.A.K. Appeal accepted and revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer