1986 P Cr (PLP)
NASEEM RAFIQ alias GOLDI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | NASEEM RAFIQ alias GOLDI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 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 1986 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 P Cr (PLP) (NASEEM RAFIQ alias GOLDI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Case property not got identified by recovery witnesses at time of their examination in Court‑‑Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstance. Tariq Javid and Khalil Ahmad for the Petitioner. Ch. Imtiaz for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Imtiaz for the State. Date of hearing: 30th October, 1984. The facts giving rise to this revision, briefly, are that Naseem Rafiq alias Goidi petitioner was tried by Magistrate 1st Class under section 411, P.P.C. on the allegation of having retained one buffalo knowing the same to be stolen property. On the conclusion of the trial, the Magistrate convicted him under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. The appeal filed by him also failed on 21‑8‑1984, hence this revision.
2. To prove its case prosecution examined 4 witnesses. They supported the prosecution case.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances and produced 2 witnesses in defence.
4. The learned counsel submits that since the stolen property was not got identified by the witnesses at the time of examination, therefore, it cannot be said that the buffalo, which was recovered from the appellant in the presence of Liaqat Ali P.W.3 and Shehbaz Ali S.I., was the stolen property. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as, the case property i.e. buffalo was not got identified by the recovery witnesses at time of their examination in the Court and as such, it cannot be said that it was the buffalo of the complainant which was recovered from the appellant. In order to acquit an accused person, it is not necessary that there A should be numerous circumstances, if there is one circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court, the same be sufficient for acquittal of the accused.
6. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt the appellant is acquitted of the charge. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. S. G. D. Appeal dismissed.