PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ALLAH DINO vs State Ss — 2025 PLD 128 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2025 PLD 128 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
PLD
Parties
ALLAH DINO vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 353---Q; S. 353; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

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

Judgment text as reported

ALLAH DINO VS State Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 353---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Evidence in one case used in another case for awarding conviction---Legality---Right to fair trial and due process---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing and concealing his body---Record showed that appellant along with acquitted accused were tried independently, whereas other appellant being juvenile was tried separately---In both the cases, evidence from the prosecution witnesses was recorded separately and they were also cross-examined separately---In both the cases, single judgment was passed and only evidence of one case was appreciated/discussed in the judgment and the evidence recorded in the case of juvenile was not discussed and the appellant/juvenile was convicted on the basis of evidence which was not recorded in the case---Evidence recorded in one case could not be used in another case for awarding conviction---Practice adopted by the Trial Court in the case was illegal and against the law---Appellant/juvenile was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life based on evidence which was not recorded in his case and the practice so adopted by the Trial Court was in violation of S. 353, Cr.P.C.---Evidence used for convicting the appellant/juvenile was not recorded in his presence as he was tried in another case and the evidence recorded in other case was used against him while convicting him---Thus based on the said facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment was not sustainable in law and same was set-aside---Case was remanded to the Trial Court only for re-writing the judgment and to decide both the cases separately by discussing the evidence of each case separately---Appeals were disposed of accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English