2004 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE — Appellant Versus SARDAR ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE — Appellant Versus SARDAR ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) 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: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE — Appellant Versus SARDAR ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 410 & 417(2-A)
"Appeal against acquittal" and "appeal against conviction"
Standard of assessing evidence in appeal against acquittal was quite different from that laid down for appeal against conviction
Marked difference existed between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction and in appeal against acquittal
Appraisal of evidence in appeal against conviction was done strictly and in appeal against acquittal, same rigid method of appraisement was not to be applied as there was already finding of acquittal given by the Trial Court after proper analysis of record-- Interference in the appeal against acquittal was made only when it appeared that there had been gross misreading of the evidence which amounted to miscarriage of justice
Ordinary scope of appeal against acquittal was considerably narrow and limited.
S. 417(2-A)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379/34
Evidence in the present case was highly doubtful regarding involvement of accused in commission of crime
Trial Court had advanced valid and cogent reasons for passing a finding of acquittal in favour of accused and no legal justification existed to disturb said finding
Acquittal of accused did not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference with judgment of Trial Court in that regard
One substantial doubt was enough to acquit the accused
Appeal against acquittal, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2004, decided on 25th March, 2004 (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Ss. 410 & 417(2-A)
"Appeal against acquittal" and "appeal against conviction"
Standard of assessing evidence in appeal against acquittal was quite different from that laid down for appeal against conviction
Marked difference existed between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction and in appeal against acquittal
Appraisal of evidence in appeal against conviction was done strictly and in appeal against acquittal, same rigid method of appraisement was not to be applied as there was already finding of acquittal given by the Trial Court after proper analysis of record-- Interference in the appeal against acquittal was made only when it appeared that there had been gross misreading of the evidence which amounted to miscarriage of justice
Ordinary scope of appeal against acquittal was considerably narrow and limited. Muhammad Usman and 2 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 498 and The State v. Muhammad Sharif and others 1995 SCMR 635 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 417(2-A)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.379/34
Evidence in the present case was highly doubtful regarding involvement of accused in commission of crime
Trial Court had advanced valid and cogent reasons for passing a finding of acquittal in favour of accused and no legal justification existed to disturb said finding
Acquittal of accused did not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference with judgment of Trial Court in that regard
One substantial doubt was enough to acquit the accused
Appeal against acquittal, was dismissed, in circumstances. Abdul Aziz Khan Dalokhel for Appellant.