2000 PLP 605 (MLD)
STATE through Advocate-General, Balochistan — Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 605 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Quetta |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | STATE through Advocate-General, Balochistan — Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 605 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 605 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Quetta bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 605 (MLD) (STATE through Advocate-General, Balochistan — Appellant Versus ABDUL SATTAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.302/34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(1)
Effect
Trial Court had ignored the unexplained long abscondence of two accused which was a strong circumstance supporting the prosecution case against them
Abscondence by itself, no doubt, was not sufficient for conviction of accused, .but was a strong piece of corroborative evidence of the other direct and circumstantial evidence in the case
Antecedents of the absconders, their occupational habits and limitations, period of abscondence and specific explanation for the same were all to be considered in juxtaposition with the other evidence on record
No material contradictions had apparently appeared in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the material part of the prosecution story which had not been properly discussed by the, Trial Court and no convincing reasons had been given to disbelieve the same
Minor contradictions in the evidence which did not relate to the main occurrence were ignorable as only material contradictions were to be considered
Omission to mention the names of witnesses or accused in the site plan could not take away the probative force of the ocular testimony in the case
Due to wrong approach to the case and misreading of the record by the Trial Court a miscarriage of justice had resulted in the case and it was difficult to decide the fate of the accused on the evidence in the absence of any explanation etc. from the side of two accused who had remained absconders during the trial
Order of acquittal passed by Trial Court was set aside by High Court in circumstances and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to conduct de novo trial from the stage of examination of accused in accordance with law.
S.417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34
Finding of acquittal is not sacrosanct if the reasons given are of speculative or artificial nature or the finding is based on no evidence or is the result of misreading or misinterpretation of evidence or the conclusions drawn as to the guilt or innocence of accused are perverse resulting into miscarriage of justice.
S.302/34
Factors adversely reflecting on the creditability of a witness not sufficient to discredit his whole testimony-- Principle highlighted.
S.302/34
Site plan itself is not a substantive piece of evidence so that it could contradict the ocular evidence in, the case
Site plan is prepared only to explain or to appreciate the evidence on record.