Robbery

Counsel for the petitioner, upon realization of that fact, did not press that petition and sought permission to withdraw the same

Petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused snatched an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- along with cheque books from the complainant

Complainant and eye-witness were under an obligation to give the description in order to subsequently identify the culprits during formal Test Identification Parade

During the Test Identification Parade held under the supervision of Judicial Magistrate, complainant and eye-witness had picked up the petitioner and identified him but neither of them attributed any specific role nor identified him as a culprit, thus merely picking him up during the Test Identification Parade would not incriminate the petitioner, more particularly, when complainant and eye-witnesses in their statements before the police had not given the description of the culprits

Henceforth, no reliance could be placed upon such statements and Test Identification Parade for holding the petitioner guilty of the indictment

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused snatched an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- along with cheque books from the complainant

According to the Investigating Officer, the petitioner made disclosure and led the police contingent to the house of co-accused, where during search, the Police Officials recovered a 9-mm pistol along with five live rounds from a room, whereas co-accused got recovered Rs. 3,36,000/- from closet of his room

Said witness further testified that the petitioner got recovered his TT pistol with three live rounds and his share out of the plundered money i.e. Rs. 400,000/- from the guest room of the house of co-accused

Investigating Officer allegedly secured Rs. 3,36,000/- from proclaimed offender and Rs. 400,000/- from petitioner, pursuant to his disclosure, where after a joint recovery memo. was prepared

Complainant had neither given the numbers nor the denominations of the plundered notes, thus it was difficult to ascertain as to whether the recovered cash was the same amount which was plundered or otherwise

Moreso, the prosecution had also not secured the cheque books, which could have been material and incriminating evidence, but the prosecution was absolutely silent about the said cheque books

Even otherwise, the recovery was a corroborative piece of evidence, which in absence of substantive evidence, was of no help to the case of the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In the FIR, allegation against the petitioner was that he inflicted chhuri/ dagger blows at the abdomen of the deceased/complainant, which proved fatal and the complainant succumbed to injuries on the following day

Through a supplementary statement of the deceased/ complainant, which was recorded by the police on the day of occurrence while the complainant was admitted in the hospital, he nominated the present petitioner to be the unknown culprit who committed the offence

Father of the deceased/ complainant and a prosecution witness after having seen the CCTV video of the occurrence showing petitioner stabbing the deceased/complainant, charged the petitioner for murder of the deceased in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C.

In the forensic video analysis made by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency of the CCTV video of the occurrence, no editing features were observed, hence the question of false implication did not arise in the instant matter

Cause of death, as recorded in the post-mortem report, was injuries to liver and major vessel of the abdomen

Recovered chhuri/ dagger, as per FSL report, was found to be stained with the human blood

In this way, the medical evidence and the recovery of crime weapon fully supported the prosecution case by connecting the petitioner with the commission of crime, which entailed capital punishment and fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

Mere fact that the petitioner was a juvenile did not entitle him to the concession of bail as he was charged for a heinous offence, the punishment for which was death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for more than seven years

Petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail

Bail application was, therefore, dismissed and leave was declined.

Investigating Officer had not bothered to confirm from the concerned company whether the mobile was sold in the name of the complainant or otherwise

Complainant had submitted an affidavit wherein he had exonerated the accused at bail stage but during trial he had resiled from the affidavit

Complainant had not alleged that the accused was armed with any weapon or caused any injury to him

Fear of death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint was necessary to meet the end of constituting an offence under S. 392, P.P.C.

Conviction and sentence recorded against the accused was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.

Sentence awarded to him was 3 years, which came within the ambit of short sentence and before Criminal Revision was set down for hearing, it was quite possible that he might have served out his entire sentence

Due to pendency of backlog of cases upon board of the High Court, main revision application could take sufficient time in its decision

Convict had made out a good prima facie case for suspension of his sentence under S. 426, Cr.P.C.

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

In the present case, Statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial was, available to the accused after lapse of one year

Proceedings conducted subsequent to framing of the charge revealed that on most of the dates of hearing, the prosecution witnesses were absent while on two occasions the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, delay in conclusion of trial was not occasioned by any act or omission on the part of the accused

Though the accused appeared to be a habitual offender as being involved in other cases of like nature, yet the fact remained that he retained no conviction in them

Except few cases registered in the year 2021 under S. 392, P.P.C., there was no record of involvement of accused in like cases previously i.e. prior to the year 2021

Continuous detention, of accused for more than a year without any material or even remote progress in conclusion of trial, brought his case within the ambit of third proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused was, therefore, held entitled to post-arrest bail on statutory ground of delay in conclusion of trial

Accused was admitted to post arrest bail, in circumstances.

Complainant in his cross-examination candidly stated that he had not seen the accused snatching motorcycle and other articles from the witnesses

Prosecution case was that during chase, the accused concealed the cash under certain trees of a garden, which was subsequently recovered at his instance

However, this seemed to be impossible because when the people were chasing him, it was not possible for the accused to dig a hole and conceal the amount therein

Nothing was available on record to suggest whether the mobile phone, allegedly snatched by the accused, was recovered from him

No identification of said looted articles was established from the record to meet the legal requirements, hence, it could not be considered sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime to the extent of robbery

When the accused was apprehended, he was not on or with a motorcycle, therefore, it can safely be said that recovery of motorcycle could not be used against him

Prosecution could not produce reliable evidence to sustain conviction of the accused for robbery under section 392, P.P.C.

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and partly allowed and conviction and sentence of accused for robbery was set-aside.

Accused, after having been arrested in the relation to another FIR, was included in an identification parade and was positively identified by the complainant

Nothing was placed on record to establish that the identification parade was not carried out in accordance with law

Such identification parade was carried out within ten days of the accused having been arrested

Cell phone with the IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number that is noted in the FIR was recovered from the possession of the accused

Argument that the number of the SIM Card (Subscriber Identity Module Card) installed in the phone was not mentioned in the FIR made no difference as the SIM Card was replaceable and it was the IMEI number that was unique to the phone

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

In absence of any description of the stolen property given in the FIR, or in the supplementary statement of the complainant or any witness recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., prior to the alleged recovery, it could not be said with certainty the recovered property was that which was allegedly stolen.

Alleged discrepancy in the actual number of assailants, and flaws attributed to the test identification parade were issues that could not be settled within the restricted scope of tentative assessment of the material collected by the investigating agency

Said issues essentially were to be determined by the Trial Court, on the strength of evidence, yet to be recorded

In the absence of any apparent malice (for false implication of accused), identification of the accused by the witnesses, recovery of the looted articles on the disclosure of accused, and the manner in which the inmates of the house, including children and women were tied at an odd hour of night during the robbery, request of bail by the accused could not be allowed

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and bail was refused to the accused.

First Information Report was lodged after delay of 24 hours despite the fact that distance of police station was about 13 to 14 kilometers from place of occurrence

No plausible reason was assigned by complainant which showed that no sincere effort was made by complainant's side to report matter to police with due promptitude

Statements of prosecution witnesses were contradictory to each other which created doubts in story of prosecution and benefit of doubt went to accused

Prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside conviction and sentence passed by two courts below and acquitted accused persons of charge

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Accused was struck by the complainant with his car but he succeeded to run away while leaving his motorcycle at the crime scene

Soon after the occurrence, police reached at the spot and took the motorcycle into possession

Despite the said fact, delay of two days in lodging the crime report created serious doubt regarding the veracity of the stance of the complainant

Identification parade was conducted with delay of about one and a half months

Report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had already been submitted and since then there was no progress in the trial

Investigation had already been completed and further incarceration of the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose for the prosecution

Case of accused called further probe into his guilt within the scope of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petition was allowed and accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, in circumstances.

Accused persons had planned and robbed the deceased at his shop with firearms and robbery took place in broad daylight in bazaar where members of public were present and when owner of shop resisted the robbery, he was shot in cold blood in front of members of public

When other members of public tried to intervene, they were warned off by accused persons, threatening them with pistols

Another person who tried to intervene was again shot dead in cold blood by accused persons in front of public

While making their escape good, accused persons deliberately made aerial firing in order to scare off and terrorize public and in particular, minority community to whom victims belonged

High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as same was based upon valid and sound reasons and was in consonance with provisions of relevant law

Accused persons failed to point out any legal infirmity in same as act of terrorism was carried out by accused persons during robbery, murders and aerial firing and same fell within purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Complainant's case against accused was that he abused complainant's son, beat him, issued threats of killing him and thereafter sent three persons to his house, who gave beating to him, snatched his wallet and damaged the wind-screen of his vehicle

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused for the reason that eye-witness deposed in the court that he had seen three persons who were beating complainant's son, but during examination-in-chief he could not identify the accused person even though he was present before the court

Second eye-witness deposed that he was passing by the place of occurrence when incident took place and he had seen the incident but he could not identify the accused before the court

First Information Report was lodged with a delay of 9 days for which no satisfactory explanation was furnished

False implication of accused in the case with due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.

Prosecution case was that three unknown persons and son of the complainant had committed robbery and robbed a mobile, golden ornaments and hard cash from the house of the complainant

First Information Report had been registered on direction of the court in an application filed under S. 22-A, Cr.P.C.

Ocular account of the case had been furnished by complainant, his brother and his real son

Complainant did not support the story of commission of offence as narrated in application filed under S.22-A, Cr.P.C., however, said witness had supported the contents of FIR and stated that on gun point accused took out his licensed pistol besides the keys of almirah

Co-accused persons hostaged all the family members of his house and accused and co-accused/son of complainant took out cash amounting to Rs. 21,00,000/- and five tola gold

Co-accused robbed mobile phone from the said witness and subsequently, all the accused went away from his house by bolting the door from outside the house

Complainant, in cross-examination, had admitted that except co-accused/son of complainant, other accused were not known to him prior to the incident and the neighbourers disclosed to him the names of accused

Complainant had admitted that he did not mention the source of information regarding the names of co-accused persons except his son and that he had not given the names of neighbours who disclosed to him the names of accused

Complainant had further stated that in the morning, he had disclosed the names of accused to his neighbours, who had drafted the application for the registration of FIR

Complainant had disclosed the facts of the incident to his three neighbours

Said three persons did not step in the witness box as their names had not been included in the calendar of prosecution witness

Complainant had admitted non-mentioning the names of three accused in his application for registration of FIR and that no identification of pistol was made at police station or before competent court, which was recovered by the police

Witness/brother of complainant had supported the complainant by stating the names of accused with their specific role

Witness/real son of complainant had stated briefly almost similar facts of incident in his examination-in-chief; however, in cross-examination, said witness had stated that his brother/co-accused was annoyed with his father/complainant on the matter of property and six months prior to incident, his brother had not visited the house and was residing in a street near to their house, father had not visited his brother's house

Record showed that Investigating Officer neither examined the neighbours of complainant, residing adjacent to the house of incident, nor any other inhabitant of the locality

Admittedly, the Investigating Officer neither conducted enquiry regarding robbed case property, cash amount and weapons, recovered from accused persons nor made any enquiry as to who was owner of the pistol, allegedly recovered from accused persons

Prosecution had failed to produce evidence sufficient to maintain the conviction against the accused persons

Appeal was accepted and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Admittedly, said recovery was effected after sufficient time of alleged incident, which would not be sufficient to prove the case of prosecution against the accused persons because the said amount, even if recovered, could not be said to be the case property, keeping in view the prosecution version that it was the sale proceed.

Prosecution case was that complainant was present at his cabin, when accused and his co-accused duly armed with deadly weapons came there and robbed him of Rs. 45000/- cash and two mobile phones

Accused made fires from his T.T. pistol which hit the complainant at his arm and thereafter, accused ran away along with robbed property

Record showed that incident took place in the night, but neither crime weapon was recovered from the accused nor robbed money or mobile phones were recovered from him

Place of incident was inspected, after thirty four days of the incident and nothing favourable to the prosecution was found there

No independent person was cited as witness in the case although the place of incident was surrounded by the shops and 20/25 persons allegedly gathered there at the time of incident

No effort was shown to have been made by the prosecution to examine any independent person from the locality

Material contradictions were noticed in the evidence led by the prosecution

Medical evidence was not in line with the ocular account

Co-accused persons had already been acquitted by the trial court on the basis of same evidence

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, benefit of which, would resolve in favour of accused

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

Complainant remained in the hospital for nine days, and came back home, but the FIR was lodged after thirty four days of the incident and twenty five days of his discharge from hospital

No plausible explanation was given for said inordinate delay in lodging FIR

Said delay in lodging FIR was fatal to the prosecution in circumstances.

Complainant had alleged that accused-petitioners duly armed alighted from their motor bike and robbed him of his motor cycle, Rs. 5,000 and his mobile phone

Mala fide had to be shown on the part of either the complainant or the police in case of pre-arrest bail

Record showed that complainant filed the FIR against the accused-petitioners after they filed civil suit against him

Said factor, prima facie, indicated that FIR had been lodged for mala fide reasons in order to pressurize the accused-petitioners to withdraw or settle the civil suit

Complainant did not make any effort to proceed with the completion of the trial of the accused-petitioners

Sole purpose of the complainant seemed to be to unnecessarily linger the trial which conduct itself appeared to be prima facie "mala fide"

Facts and circumstances of the case showed that robbery was not committed on the highway as alleged, and maximum imprisonment could be extended for ten years and shall not be less than three years, however, even in such circumstances, the minimum period of not less than three years would be considered while passing sentence, if the accused was convicted under S. 392, P.P.C.

If the sentence carried a range from five years to fifteen years imprisonment, for the purpose of bail, the lower end of the range would be considered, which in the case of S. 392, P.P.C. was three years

Record showed that pre-arrest bail was granted two years ago and accused-petitioners had been regularly attending the trial proceedings during the said period

Trial had been halted largely on account of complainant's conduct

Recalling the interim pre-arrest bail, in circumstances, would serve no useful purpose but would abuse the process of law

Accused-petitioners were not to be prejudiced/made to suffer due to no fault of their own especially, when they were regularly attending the trial proceedings

Trial would not likely to proceed further in the near future

Facts and circumstances of the case suggested that accused-petitioners were not at fault, hence pre-arrest bail was confirmed.

Offence under S.324, P.P.C., had neither been mentioned in the charge, nor such point was formulated in the impugned judgment and no specific question touching the ingredients of S.324, P.P.C., was put to accused persons by the Trial Court

Said omission had shown that accused had not been afforded opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances bearing in evidence against them

Trial Court was bound to ask such questions to accused with detail of those pieces of evidence, which had to be made the basis of conviction

Conviction of accused could not sustain on account of omission to put such questions to accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., and such illegality/gross irregularity, could not be cured

Accused persons, without pressing appeal on merits, however, contended that they were sole bread winners of their families and were behind the bars since more than 3 years; being convict they would be satisfied, if the fine/daman amount be remitted

Counsel representing the State recorded "no objection" to such proposition

Accused persons had served the substantive sentence of 2 years, 15 days, they had earned remission of 1 year, 4 months and 27 days

Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., was extended to accused persons and as per Jail Role their under trial period calculated by Jail Authority was 1 year, 9 months and 21 days

Total period of their confinement was 5 years, 7 months and 3 days

Plea of reduction of sentence, would not constitute bar for the appellate court from interfering where findings were based on erroneous and speculative presumptions or non-reading or mis-reading of evidence

Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court under S.324, P.P.C. was set aside

Accused persons having already served the conviction and sentence recorded in remaining offences, except fine and daman, which amount was remitted and accused were set free in circumstances.

Accused was not nominated in the crime report and he had been involved in the present case through supplementary statement

Complainant had not disclosed any plausible source from where he gathered the knowledge that accused had committed the crime alleged

Culpability of accused had to be seen by the Trial Court after recording of evidence

Accused was first time offender and behind the bars since the date of his arrest

Investigation had been completed and accused was no more required by the police for further investigation

Further detention of accused in jail would not serve any useful purpose

Accused was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

Plea of accused, was, that he had taken the he-goats of the complainant party from his herd of goats as a customary fine; and never with any other intention

Plea taken by accused, needed further consideration

Trial Court, was yet to determine that taking of the he-goats, was as a customary fine or amounted to any offence

Such very fact, was sufficient to hold that the case was one of further inquiry; and accused was entitled to concession of bail

Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.

Accused were produced before Magistrate in a case registered under S. 392, P.P.C., who sent them to judicial remand for identification parade

Respondent filed application under S. 491, Cr.P.C. regarding same accused before Sessions Judge under which said accused were produced before court

Court, finding accused subjected to torture after their medical examination, released them on bail by converting said application into petition under Ss. 497/498, Cr.P.C.

Court, while releasing accused, also directed police authorities to transfer investigation of their case

Magistrate, having been apprised of production and release of accused recalled and reviewed the first order of remand, and directed SHO concerned to register case against Investigating Officer for producing, and obtaining judicial remand regarding, some other persons instead of actual accused

Petitioners, police officials, contended that Sessions Court had wrongly admitted accused to bail and made wrong observations as to investigation of case

Validity

Magistrate had not asked about identity of accused before sending them to judicial remand

Magistrate had recalled earlier order and directed registration of case against petitioner without probing into matter or issuing any direction for investigation to determine whether act of petitioner was in fact matter of impersonation or not

Whole process adopted by Magistrate had been performed in hasty manner

Magistrate was competent to recall or review earlier order if same had been procured through misrepresentation, or fallen within ambit of S. 369, Cr.P.C. and had amounted to be against principles of natural justice

Magistrate had not adopted proper procedure to scrutinize if the earlier order had been procured through misrepresentation

Impugned order passed by Sessions Court with regard to transfer of investigation was also against proper procedure of law on the subject

Conversion of application filed under S. 491, Cr.P.C. into petition under Ss. 497 & 498, Cr.P.C. was well supported by delegation of powers given by High Court to Sessions Court as provided under R. 3, Part-F, Chapter 4, Volume V of High Court (Lahore) ,Rules and Orders

High Court observed that Sessions Court could only secure liberty of person by ordering their immediate release from unlawful detention and could not grant any other relief in respect of allegations of wrongful detention or any allegations of torture or some other inhumane acts committed on his person

Sessions Court should have refrained from making said observations in the order to enable both parties to have access to fair trial, which was otherwise guaranteed under Art.10-A of the Constitution

Impugned order passed by Sessions Judge to the extent of its said observation was set aside

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Applicant was not put to identification parade after his arrest before the concerned Magistrate to strengthen the case of prosecution, as eye-witness (security guard) was very much available in the complainant's office

Prosecution had failed to collect any evidence of details of the articles stolen from the lockers of the Bank by the applicant which were allegedly sold out and money was deposited in his account online through a bank from Peshawar to Karachi

Amounts were deposited in the account of the applicant, much earlier than the date of incident which had supported the contention of applicant that he was a businessman and was already maintaining the transaction of huge amounts through his said account to meet the deals of the business

Judicial Magistrate, while passing the impugned order, neither issued any notice to the applicant, nor passed a speaking order by mentioning valid reasons or justification to freeze the account of the applicant

Entire prosecution case was built on the alleged confession of applicant made before the Investigating Officer during the course of interrogation, which was not admissible under Art.39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution had failed to place any sound and direct evidence on record to establish that alleged transaction of amount from Peshawar to Karachi, was the sale price of the allegedly looted articles from the Lockers

Impugned order being void and illegal, was not sustainable in law, and was set aside

Manager of the bank was directed to allow applicant to operate his account as per rules, in circumstances.

Only the complainant had been examined as an eye-witness of the alleged incident, which allegedly took place in his house

No other inmate of the house had been examined to corroborate the version of the complainant

Evidence of the complainant, was contradictory with his own version given in the F.I.R.

Complainant, prima facie, had improved his testimony

Person, making contradictions and improvements, could not be held worthy of credence

Accused was arrested after more than six months of the alleged occurrence; and complainant was examined after more than one year of arrest of accused

Memory of a person would fade away with such passage of time

Accused was not put to any identification test

As to how the complainant was able to watch full faces of the culprits was not disclosed

According to the complainant they were muffled faces at the relevant time

Contents of memo. of recovery of digital camera, shown to have been made on pointation of accused, were not supported by Investigating Officer

Complainant, did not give particulars of said camera in the F.I.R., nor even in his statement before the court

Prosecution having failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the guilt of accused, conviction and sentence, passed by the Trial Court were set aside

Accused was acquitted and released, extending him the benefit of doubt, in circumstances.

Appeal, in the present case, had been preferred against the judgment of the Trial Court in the matter of conviction of five years against which appeal could be preferred under S.408, Cr.P.C., instead of S.410, Cr.P.C.

Such error of mentioning of wrong section, would not come in the way of dispensation of justice

Contents of the charge described snatching on the force of weapon, whereas the deposition of the complainant was vague about pointing of pistol upon him, though he explicitly stated to have resisted

In order to constitute offence under S.392, P.P.C., it was to be seen that the offender for that end, voluntarily caused or attempted to cause any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint

Hurt caused by offender be with the express object of facilitating the committing of the offence in carrying away the property

By pointing the pistol, accused persons had put the complainant under fear of threat of death, but that threat departed when the complainant spoke that he resisted when accused persons had snatched his mobile and the cash

Trial Court had not taken into consideration the glaring improvements and contradictions arriving between each of the witnesses

Evidence, did not show that pistol had been pointed upon the complainant by accused

Case of prosecution was full of contradictions on various points, particularly the manner in which the incident was witnessed by the prosecution witnesses

Trial Court had to look into every piece of evidence forming part of transaction to constitute offence while delivering judgment of conviction, whereas in presence of contradictions and disjunction in the evidence on record, whereby the offence under S.392, P.P.C. had not been proved beyond shadow of doubt on the scale of available evidence, judgment of Trial Court, was set aside, and accused was acquitted extending him benefit of doubt and he was released, in circumstances.

Holding of test identification parade could not be dispensed with simply because accused, who allegedly committed the robbery, was subsequently found in possession of robbed goods

Illustration.

Counsel for accused raised objection about non-availability of the certificate on the statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Certificate was required under subsection (2) of S.364, Cr.P.C.

Statement bore the signature of accused and the court, but the required certificate was missing from the statement

Accused had not alleged that his statement was not recorded in presence and hearing of the court or the court did not put question to him; that he did not give any replies to the said question to the court; that the court did not record the said reply at all; or recorded them improperly; or that he did not put his signature on his statement; or that the court did not sign the same; or that the record did not contain full and true statement furnished by accused

Non-availability of certificate as required under S.364, Cr.P.C., was irregularity which could be cured under S.537, Cr.P.C.

Objection of counsel for accused, had no force, in circumstances

Accused was identified by prosecution witness in the hospital in presence of complainant and other prosecution witness

Complainant and Police Official had also supported version regarding identification of accused in the hospital

Evidence of both the said persons was consistent on material points and the minor inconsistencies in their evidences were inconsequential in nature

No enmity was alleged by accused against prosecution witnesses for false implication

Recovery of motorcycle of the complainant was held in presence of complainant and his son

Contention of counsel for accused that compliance of S.103, Cr.P.C. had not been made, was without substance because said recovery was not made from any house, but accused himself had led Police to the place of recovery

Prosecution had proved the recovery through Investigating Officer, complainant and his son who were mashirs of recovery, beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

Case of prosecution against accused was based upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses, where statements were consistent on material points and were confidence-inspiring

Contradictions in the prosecution witnesses were minor in nature and immaterial, not enough to shatter the prosecution evidence

Prosecution witnesses though were related inter se, but nothing was brought on record that they had any animus with accused

Case against accused having been established for the charge, judgment of the Trial Court required no interference which was maintained, in circumstances.

In commission of offence of robbery, every member shares vicarious liability for each and every act done during the offence.

Alleged recovery of motorcycle, mobile phone and currency notes on the pointation of accused persons, were not put to them in their statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Said recoveries, could not be used against them

No report of Forensic Science Laboratory was available on record in respect of .30 bore pistol allegedly recovered from accused

Said recovery was of no help to the case of prosecution

Appeal to the extent of the conviction of accused persons under S.392, P.P.C. was accepted; their conviction and sentence to that extent were set aside and they were acquitted from the said charge.

Complainant in his examination-in-chief did not specifically state that accused was the person who robbed him of his cash and mobile phones but only stated that accused caused a butt blow on his head

Complainant was not referred to a medico-legal officer for examination of his injury and there was nothing on record to prove that he had received injury on his head

Mashirnama of arrest and recovery from accused showed that he was armed with a pistol but neither any cash nor mobile was recovered from him

Prosecution failed to examine two essential prosecution witnesses who were to corroborate the version of the complainant

Accused was given benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to accused was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.

Eye-witness of the incident and private witnesses named in the F.I.R., were given up by the prosecution without assigning any reason

No ocular evidence was available to connect accused with the alleged crime in circumstances

Accused acquitted from the second F.I.R. registered against him for alleged recovery of robbed mare

Appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the accused was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.

Investigating Officer had detained the complainant at the Police Station for about two hours, till the complainant prepared a written report implicating the accused in the case, on which the F.I.R. was lodged

Investigating Officer, thus, was interested in conviction of accused

Prosecution had withheld and not produced the important witness, brother of the complainant, who had been deprived of his cash and other valuables during the alleged incident of robbery

No recovery of any robbed article or weapon of offence had been effected from the accused to corroborate or support the prosecution version

Place of incident being already in the knowledge of the police, disclosure memo also did not support the prosecution case

Mere pointation of the place of occurrence not leading to any recovery was nothing but a futile exercise

Accused was acquitted in circumstances.

Section 61, Cr.P.C stipulates that a police officer cannot detain a person in custody for more than twenty four hours in the absence of a specific order of Magistrate under S.167, Cr.P.C

Section 167, Cr.P.C enables a Magistrate to pass an order extending the detention of an accused for a term not exceeding fifteen days and he has to record his reason for doing so

Section 344, Cr.P.C postulates that no Magistrate shall remand an accused person to custody for a term exceeding fifteen days at a time and if sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise suspicion that accused might have committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand, it is a reasonable cause for remand.

Remand is not to be granted mechanically on the request of the police, rather a Magistrate is expected to perform his duty with eyes and ears open as required under the law after judicious application of mind and not in a perfunctory manner

Before granting a remand, Magistrate is under a legal obligation to satisfy himself if under the circumstances remand is to be granted or not

Liberty of an accused cannot be compromised merely on a formal request of police and it is the sacred duty of a Magistrate to safeguard the fundamental rights of life and liberty of a person.

Report of Finger Prints Bureau clearly revealed that the fingers and palm prints of accused did not match with the prints of fingers and palms of culprits, which were lifted/secured after the occurrence

Reasonable doubt, in circumstances, had arisen regarding involvement of accused in the commission of the alleged offence

Modern techniques usually lead to a correct conclusion and those should be resorted to as far as possible in the investigation of criminal cases

No identification parade was held in the case

Identification of the ornaments in the Police Station, could not be given any weight

Case against accused clearly needed further probe and inquiry

Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Accused along with his co-accused had allegedly committed robbery in the warehouse of Fertilizer Company and had taken away 231 bags of Urea fertilizer, a sum of Rs.8000, a mobile phone and a wrist watch of the complainant

Description of the accused was not given in the F.I.R.

Accused was not put to the test of identification parade

Nothing had been recovered from the accused

SIM of the mobile phone had been produced before the Investigating Officer by the brother of the accused and such recovery could not be said to have been effected on the pointation of accused and was not helpful to the prosecution

Case against accused needed further inquiry and he was allowed bail in circumstances.

Accused was admitted to bail, accordingly.

Accused along with his co-accused had allegedly intercepted the complainant at a bridge and by showing weapons snatched away his cell phone and cash but was apprehended by police officials who were on patrolling duty in the area

F.I.R. had been promptly lodged after an hour of the occurrence and accused was arrested at the spot and robbed property was recovered from his possession

Offence with which accused was charged did not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., but such fact simply did not justify the grant of bail, as deeper appreciation of evidence of material available on record could not be done while deciding bail application

Prima facie case had been made out against accused for commission of the alleged offence and accused having failed to make out a case for further inquiry, his bail application was dismissed.

Said motorcycle and the tractor had not yet been recovered from the accused, nor the prosecution had proved the ownership of the same

No trolley having been attached with the tractor, it was difficult to visualize that forty bags of fertilizer and zinc pesticides could be loaded on the back of the tractor

Case against accused appeared to be doubtful and of further inquiry

Accused were behind the bars for about two months

Bail was allowed to accused, in circumstances.

Sentence of five years awarded to accused had been sought to be suspended during pendency of appeal on the ground that appeal had been filed on 3-12-2010 and ever since, not a single date/ adjournment had been taken by accused and that there was no possibility of early hearing of appeal

State Counsel had no objection to grant of application for suspension of sentence

By consent, application for suspension of sentence was granted

Accused was enlarged on bail, in circumstances.

Once ground was taken by accused that he was a child, it was the duty of the court to resort to proceedings under S.7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 for determining his age

Such step had not been taken by the court below

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Description of allegedly recovered mobile phone from accused had not been mentioned, either in the F.I.R. or in the recovery memo

Mobile phone SIM belonging to the complainant had not been recovered from accused

None of the articles allegedly snatched from the complainant as per F.I.R. was recovered from accused or his co-accused

Said facts had made the case of accused of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Complainant lodged F.I.R., but no investigation was carried out, and investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch Police and same was entrusted to Inspector, Crime Branch, with the directions to conclude investigation within seven days

Inspector Crime Branch, without inspection of the place of incident and recording of the statement of witnesses, within three days submitted report under "A" class before Magistrate, with the endorsement that witnesses being not available, due to lack of evidence summary under "A" class could be accepted which proved that Investigating Officer was unaware about the scope of "A" class, according to "Bombay Presidency Police Guide", which was being followed in Sindh, since the days Sindh was part of Bombay Presidency

Investigating Officer in the present case had submitted that witnesses being not available, summary was being submitted

Such conduct of authorities and Investigating Officer fell within the ambit of colourable exercise

No reasons were attributed to justify the transfer of investigation from ordinary Police to Special Police

Transfer orders by police authorities, having no legal sanctity in the eyes of law, same was declared as null and void.

Question as to the age of accused, could only be determined by the court in accordance with S.7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000

Contentions of the counsel for accused were that the F.I.R. was recorded after delay of four day and that no recovery had been shown in the report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C.

Said contentions deserved due weight

Accused was entitled to concession of bail in circumstances.

Name, "hulia" or any description of accused had not been mentioned in the F.I.R.; and F.I.R. was lodged after an unexplained delay of about thirty days

Identification parade of accused was not held before the Judicial Magistrate, which was necessary in the cases where the name of accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R.

Case of accused being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Accused along with his bail application had enclosed memo of arrest and recovery, where engine and chassis number of the snatched motor cycle were mentioned

Matter fell within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., bail application of accused, was dismissed in circumstances.

Order passed by the Trial Court, whereby bail application of accused was rejected, was very sketchy and non-speaking and against the facts of the case

Trial Court had stated that accused were identified at the spot by the complainant, whereas in the F.I.R. it was stated that complainant was not present at the scene of the crime and accused were identified by the complainant's wife by their voice which was a weak evidence

Such an order could not be sustained as Trial Court had not given any cogent reason for rejection of bail

Case of accused was that of further enquiry

Grant of bail in respect of offences for which maximum punishment was less than ten years was a right and refusal an exception

Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Though private witnesses had not been associated in the case, but outrightly, the evidence of the Police witnesses could not be discarded only on the ground that they were Police Officials, unless strong reasons were available to believe that they might have falsely involved the accused persons

Eye-witness and the victim had picked both accused persons out of fifteen persons in identification parade

Complainant as well as his son and other witnesses were put to lengthy cross-examinations, but nothing favourable to the defence came out of them

No reason was available to believe that complainant's son might have involved accused persons falsely at the instance of Police, as neither the Police personnel nor the complainant party had any grudge against accused persons

Snatched articles were also recovered on the pointation of accused from the possession of accused

Trial Judge had fully discussed the evidence on record as well as the defence plea taken by accused persons; and had given cogent reasons for arriving to the conclusion that accused were found guilty

Accused persons in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C. had merely denied the allegations and had stated that they had been falsely involved in the case

Accused did not even examine themselves on the oath in their defence

Prosecution had fully proved the charge against accused persons

Minor contradictions and irregularities, if any, in the case, would not help accused persons

Interference in the findings of the Trial Court were declined by Federal Shariat Court.