2004 P Cr (PLP)
SIKANDAR SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ejaz Afzal Khan and Fazlur Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SIKANDAR SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Fazlur Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (SIKANDAR SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Latif Khan Baloch for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 365‑A/109/148/149‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Entire affair from the very inception seemed to be a `Drama' rather than an actual occurrence‑‑‑When alleged abductee himself neither charged nor expressed suspicion against anybody, what was that extraordinary thing for which police continued its pursuit to trace and track down the person responsible for commission of alleged crime‑‑‑Over excitement of police had led them to put crime on a person/accused whose participation in the crime was a physical impossibility when according to confessional statement recorded by Magistrate accused had been in the police custody during the period of occurrence‑‑‑Reasons justifying suspicion as to the complicity of accused in the crime wee not known‑‑‑Such action of police was nothing, but a wild goose chase‑‑‑Prosecution ,was bound to explain circumstances justifying suspicion even though person suspected turned out to be an actual culprit particularly when charge against accused emanated from no other source except his confessional statement‑‑‑When evidence in the behalf was woefully lacking, only inference which could reasonably be drawn was that Investigating Officers after failing to find out actual culprit, found a scapegoat, in, accused to show their performance and efficiency‑‑‑Identification of accused during identification parade, in no way would improve case of prosecution when prosecution witness had opportunity of seeing accused before such exercise was held‑‑‑Story as to alleged ransom also appeared to be no better than cock and bull story ‑‑‑Confessional statement of accused which was the only evidence allegedly connecting accused with crime, also did not appear to be free from the taint of torture, duress and manipulation as accused was again taken into custody and alleged confessional statement was recorded after his prolonged custody of 17 days‑‑‑Ocular account of occurrence did not tend to incriminate any of accused persons, besides the fact that it was bristling with doubts and infirmities‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded against accused by Trial Court, were set aside and they were directed to be released. Raz Muhammad v. The State PLD 2002 SC 56 ref. Shaukat Hayat Khan Khakwani, Dy. A.‑G. for the State. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeals Nos.9 and 11 of 2003, decided on 8th April, 2003. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 365‑A/109/148/149‑‑‑Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Entire affair from the very inception seemed to be a `Drama' rather than an actual occurrence‑‑‑When alleged abductee himself neither charged nor expressed suspicion against anybody, what was that extraordinary thing for which police continued its pursuit to trace and track down the person responsible for commission of alleged crime‑‑‑Over excitement of police had led them to put crime on a person/accused whose participation in the crime was a physical impossibility when according to confessional statement recorded by Magistrate accused had been in the police custody during the period of occurrence‑‑‑Reasons justifying suspicion as to the complicity of accused in the crime wee not known‑‑‑Such action of police was nothing, but a wild goose chase‑‑‑Prosecution ,was bound to explain circumstances justifying suspicion even though person suspected turned out to be an actual culprit particularly when charge against accused emanated from no other source except his confessional statement‑‑‑When evidence in the behalf was woefully lacking, only inference which could reasonably be drawn was that Investigating Officers after failing to find out actual culprit, found a scapegoat, in, accused to show their performance and efficiency‑‑‑Identification of accused during identification parade, in no way would improve case of prosecution when prosecution witness had opportunity of seeing accused before such exercise was held‑‑‑Story as to alleged ransom also appeared to be no better than cock and bull story ‑‑‑Confessional statement of accused which was the only evidence allegedly connecting accused with crime, also did not appear to be free from the taint of torture, duress and manipulation as accused was again taken into custody and alleged confessional statement was recorded after his prolonged custody of 17 days‑‑‑Ocular account of occurrence did not tend to incriminate any of accused persons, besides the fact that it was bristling with doubts and infirmities‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded against accused by Trial Court, were set aside and they were directed to be released. Raz Muhammad v. The State PLD 2002 SC 56 ref. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch for Appellant. Shaukat Hayat Khan Khakwani, Dy. A.‑G. for the State. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in person. Date of hearing: 8th April, 2003.