1993 PLP 357 (MLD)
TALIB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1993 PLP 357 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | TALIB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 357 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 357 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar and Khalil‑ur‑Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 357 (MLD) (TALIB HUSSAIN and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Akram Cheema for Appellants.
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.392/397 & 452‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.382‑B‑‑ Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Prosecution witness had no motive to falsely implicate accused in the occurrence and had rightly identified them in the Identification parade‑‑‑Stolen articles had also been recovered at the instance of accused‑‑‑Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld n circumstances‑‑‑Benefit of S. 382‑B, Cr.P.C. which had been unjustifiably withheld by Trial Court 'was, however, extended to accused. Muhammad Arshad Khan for A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
7. On coming to know that all these articles had been stolen from a house in Defence Society, the said Abdul Rashid S.I. (P.W.7) informed the Police Station, Factory Area about the arrest of the said accused persons and the recovery of the abovementioned articles.
8. The said Abdul Rashid S.I. (P.W.7) sent the two appellants and the two acquitted accused persons to judicial lock‑up on 21‑3‑1988.
9. Abdul Jabbar S.1. (P.W.5) reached the Anti‑Dacoity Staff located in the premises of Police Station Qila Gujar Singh on 22-3-1988 on receipt f the above mentioned information and toot, Naveed Shehryar complainant with him where the said complainant identified the abovementioned articles i.e. P.2, P.3 and P.4.
10. On an application made by Abdul Jabbar S.I./I.O. on 2‑4‑1988, Mr. lqbal Ahmad, h1.I.C. (P.W.8) was deputed to hold a test identification parade in respect of the abovementioned four accused persons which parade he accordingly held and supervised on 3‑4‑1988 in the premises of Camp Jail, Lahore.
11. During the course of the proceedings of this test identification, Mst. Shaheen Nilofer P.W. correctly identified Talib and Karamat appellants but failed to identify Humayun and Jamil the two acquitted accused persons.
12. This was then the evidence with which the prosecution had gone to trial and when confronted with the same, all the four accused persons, including the present appellants denied their participation in the occurrence in question and pleaded that they had been falsely involved in the present case slue to suspicion.
13. Six defence witnesses were produced at the trial who stated about various accused persons claiming that they were gentlemen and that they had no hand in the commission of the dacoity in question.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants has been heard.
15. After their arrest on 20‑3‑1988, Talib and Karamat appellants had Cen remanded to judicial custody the very next day i.e. on 21‑3‑1988. They remained in judicial lock‑up till test identification parade had been held on ‑4‑1988 i.e. within thirteen days of their arrest. Talib and Karainat appellants had been correctly identified by Mst. Shaheen Nilofer P.W
16. Mst. Shaheen Nilofer P.W. was the lady of the house who had been surprised by the two appellants in her house on the day of occurrence. She had no ill will or animosity against the present appellants and had thus no motive to falsely implicate them in the occurrence in question. She is an educated lady. No reason exists to doubt her testimony or her perception which had led her to I lie identification of the two appellants.
17. As has been mentioned above, the appellants had been sent to judicial lock‑up on the very next day of their arrest and remained there till the identification parade in question had been held. No possibility thus exists of the two appellants having been shown to Mst. Shaheen Nilofer P.W. and in any case the said appellants could not specify any occasion or place where they 'could have possibly been shown to the said P.W.
18. Stereo‑deck P.3 and tape‑recorder P.2 had been recovered at the instance of Talib and Karamat respectively and nothing exists on record to) 8 justify false plantation of these articles on the two appellants.
19. No exception in the circumstances can be taken to the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court against Talib and Karamat appellant.
20. The convictions recorded against them by the learned trial Court are, therefore, upheld. The punishments awarded to them by the learned trial Court are, also maintained.
21. The learned trial Court however, disallowed the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the present appellants which, we find was not really justified.
22. Consequently, we direct that the two appellants shall be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
23. With this modification in the impugned judgment, the present appeal filed by Talib and Karamat appellants is dismissed. N.H.Q./T‑14/L Order accordingly.