State vs Muhammad Sharif Ss — 2025 MLD 1569 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

State VS Muhammad Sharif Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337 & 109---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2a)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, trespass, hurt, abetment, possession of illicit weapon---appreciation of evidence--- appeal against acquittal filed by state---acquittal were S. 265-K, Cr.P.C.---Legality---accused was charged for committing murder of four persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a female by stabbing with a sharp edged weapon---allegedly, case was registered against two nominated persons, convict and his wife, and Trial Court rightly awarded capital punishment to convict but wrongly acquitted co-accused/wife of convict under S.265-K of Cr.P.C. as said accused/respondent was nominated in FIR and was involved in hatching the conspiracy of murder of four innocent persons, hence, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to provide reasonable time to prosecution for proving its case as such impugned acquittal order did not fulfill the requirement as provided under S.265-K of Cr.P.C.---Provision of S.265-K of Cr.P.C. was always conditional and could be invoked only if the Court considered that there was no probability of an accused to be convicted of any offence with which he/she was charged, but none of such grounds was available to said accused in the present case---Perusal of statements of witnesses showed that grounds for acquittal of co-accused while exercising powers under S.265-K of Cr.P.C. were not available in presence of prosecution witnesses because prosecution produced sufficient evidence in support of its version in which she had been nominated---Record showed that the Trial Court while acquitting the co-accused/respondent travelled beyond the scope of S.265-K of Cr.P.C. and committed grave illegality and material irregularity as such the impugned judgment to that extent was liable to be set-aside---appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1569 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case State VS Muhammad Sharif Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 337 & 109---arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, trespass, hurt, abetment, possession of illicit weapon---appreciation of evidence---Confession of accused at the time of framing of charge---accused was charged for committing murder of four persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a female by stabbing with a sharp edged weapon---Record showed that the Trial Court while recording confessional statement of convict-appellant, had ignored the legal requirements of law particularly that confessional statement could only be taken into consideration if the Court was satisfied that the same was true and was recorded voluntarily i.e. not obtained by torture, coercion or inducement---No doubt that appellant confessed the guilt of offence but even then the Trial Court was duty bound to provide an opportunity of engaging counsel or give some further time and should also have put a question to convict, regarding legal consequences of his statement as convict was an illiterate person and was not aware of the legal implication of his confession---Hence, for the sake of safe administration of justice, it was enjoined upon the Trial Court to consider the factum that whether convict- appellant had made such confessional statement voluntarily or due to torture, coercion, pressure, influence, false belief, and inducement in view of surrounding circumstances of the case but record of the case did not substantiate that any such effort had been made in that regard---Thus, the Trial Court failed to discharge its legal duties as provided under law---Thus appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.

State vs Muhammad Sharif Ss — 2025 MLD 1569 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD