1989 P Cr (PLP)
WAHID BAKHSH Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | WAHID BAKHSH Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 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: 1989 P Cr (PLP) (WAHID BAKHSH Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 411‑‑Stolen property was not identified by complainant and eye‑witnesses in Court at the time of their evidence‑‑Conviction of accused under S.411, P.P.C. could not, therefore, be sustained and he was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. Ameer Bhatti for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 12th June, 1989. The facts leading to this revision, briefly, are that Wahid Bakhsh petitioner was tried under section 380/411, P.P.C. by Magistrate 1st Class, Rajanpur.
2. To prove its case, prosecution produced four witnesses. Adit Khan P.W.1 claims to have seen Wahid Bakhsh petitioner taking away his two bullocks after having stolen the same from his house. Salam P.W.2 and Faiz Muhammad P.W.3 are the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. Supporting the statement of the complainant they stated that they had seen the petitioner taking away the two bullocks of the complainant and on seeing them he ran away leaving the bullocks there. After the registration of the case, the two bullocks were produced before Abdul Hamid S.I./S.H.O. P.W.4 by the complainant who took the same into possession vide memo. Exh. P.B.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner denied the charges. In defence, he produced two witnesses.
4. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted under section 411, P.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default thereof 3 months' R.I. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajanpur but the sentence was reduced from two years' R.I. to six months' R.I.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the two stolen bullocks of the complainant were not produced in the Court and were not identified as stolen property at the time of their evidence, so prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has frankly conceded and rightly so.
6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the stolen property having not been identified by the complainant and the eye‑witnesses in the Court at the time of their evidence, the conviction of the petitioner recorded under section 411 P.P.C. cannot be sustained.
7. For what has been said above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the petitioner is acquitted of the charges. He is on bail. He stands discharged of the bail bonds. N.H.Q./W‑75/L Revision accepted.