2004P3058 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 2004P3058 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004P3058 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004P3058 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004P3058 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Criminal trial
Before finding accused guilty of charge, the Court should be satisfied that prosecution story was supported either by circumstantial evidence or at least by some circumstances implicating the accused with the guilt
Necessity of corroboration, as a matter of prudence, except where the circumstances had made it safe to dispense with the same, same must be present in the mind of the Judge
Even a single doubt, if found reasonable, was sufficient to warrant acquittal of accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 377
Fact of prosecution case mainly hinged on the bald assertion of complainant which itself was insufficient to make out a case under S. 377, P.P.C. against the accused-- Prosecution had applied Ss. 377/511, P.P.C. in the case and avoided to apply S. 377, P.P.C. only
Complainant in F. I. R. had very clearly stated that accused had rubbed his male organ into the thighs and his buttocks and had not stated that accused had penetrated his penis into his anus
Complainant in his statement recorded at the trial had simply stated that accused tried to penetrate his penis into his orifice
Charge under S.377, P.P.C. was not proved against the accused in circumstances
Evidence produced by prosecution having fallen short of required standard, same could not be considered sufficient to sustain conviction of accused
Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court were set aside and he was acquitted of charge levelled against him. Muhammad Luqman v. The State PLD 1970 SC 10; Aftab Anwar Jaleel v. The State PLD 1971 Kar. 156 and Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2001 SCMR 1999 ref. Sultan Shehryar Khan Marwat for Appellant. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 28th June, 2004.