Pakistan Penal Code 1860 Section 395

395.  Punishment for dacoity.--Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which [shall not be less than four years nor more than] ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

COMMENTARY

1. Evidence through identification. Not a substantive piece of evidence but a corroborative. 1989 PCr.LJ 2227. Recovery not inspiring confidence. 1989 PCr.LJ 2227. One circumstance creating a reasonable doubt. 1991 PCr.LJ 1216.

2. Bail. Post-arrest bail plea of petitioner in High Court validity. Accused in case u/S. 395, P.P.C who is placed in column number 2 of the challan after being declared innocent is entitled to be released on bail. NLR 1999 U.C. 247. Contention that witness was a passenger who subsequently boarded car and, therefore, had no nexus either with employer or drawer and as a matter of grace he was allowed to accompany them, therefore, such witness could have been won over at any time. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not probe into matter a bit deeply so as to ascertain as to why witness resiled from his statement in presence of statement of other eye-witnesses connecting respondent with commission of offence, it was not a proper discretion exercised by him. Resultantly bail allowed is recalled and  cancelled. PLJ 2001 Cr.C. (Lahore) 859.

3. Recovery of tape recorder. Accused duly identified, no previous background of enmity, tape recorder recovered at the instance of the accused, conviction upheld. 2002 PCr.LJ 1111.

4. Appeal. Appeal against conviction/sentence awarded to accused by way of ta'zir u/S. 395 would lie to Federal Shariat Court and not to High Court even if the accused challaned u/S. 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979. [NLR 2004 SD 318]

5.  Appreciation of evidence. Evidence of prosecution witnesses apart from evidence of complainant and abductee was independent and worth placing reliance. Such evidence coupled with evidence of Investigating Officer and recovery of car used by appellant in commission of crime would lead to belief that appellant had committed crime for ransom. Non-recovery of ransom amount was of no adverse effect to prosecution case inasmuch as, involvement of appellant in abduction of abductee for ransom stood established. Evidence of prosecution witnesses thus, appeared to be with intrinsic worth and so reliable that same had been rightly relied upon. Trial Court had drawn right conclusions from prosecution evidence and same were maintained. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 38.

Where accused had been sent to face trial for an offence which is defined and punishable under Hudood Ordinance then notwithstanding the fact that accused was not convicted under that Ordinance, but under provision of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, his trial would be deemed to have been conducted under provisions of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. Where in such case sentence was more than two years, forum for filing appeal against his conviction would be Federal Shariat Court as per terms of S. 24 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Memo of appeal was returned for presentation to proper Court. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Karachi) 36.

Defence plea that appellant had falsely been involved was absolutely hollow and without any substance. No enmity with appellant who had been servant of complainant was pointed out. Defence plea was thus, worth rejection and same was rightly rejected. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 38.

Abductee's assertion that he had been abducted from college plot was not negated by plea of defence that he was absent from college on that particular day. Any student's absence from his class would not mean his absence from being present in college. Evidence of defence about absence of abductee from class was thus, of no consequence and same was rightly discarded by Trial Court. PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 38.

One accused according to prosecution evidence was seen near the place of occurrence armed with a pistol whereas other accused nominated by the complainant was seen landing in the street by scaling over the wall of the factory. Looted property worth substantial value had also been recovered from the accused. Accused had failed to bring on record any animosity about their false implication either on the part of complainant or the witnesses and they even had not furnished any convincing and cogent explanation for their implication in the case. 2006 SCMR 370(b).

Eye-witnesses seemed to have concocted a false story to enrope the accused in the false case. Their testimony not reliable. Accused acquitted. 2006 YLR 2657.