17. Punishment for Haraabah.--Whoever, being an adult, is guilty of haraabah in the course of which neither any murder has been committed nor any property has been taken away shall be punished with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes and with rigorous imprisonment until the Court is satisfied of his being sincerely penitent:

Provided that the sentence of imprisonment shall in no case be less than three years.

(2) Whoever, being an adult, is guilty of haraabah in the course of which no property has been taken away but hurt has been caused to any person shall, in addition to the punishment provided for in sub-section (1), be punished for causing such hurt in accordance with such other law as may for the time being be applicable.

(3) Whoever, being an adult, is guilty of haraabah in the course of which no murder has been committed but property the value of which amounts to or exceeds, the nisab has been taken away shall be punished with amputation of his right hand from the wrist and of his left foot from the ankle:

Provided that, when the offence of haraabah has been committed conjointly by more than one person, the punishment of amputation shall be imposed only if the value of the share of each one of them is not less than the nisab:

Provided further that, if the left hand or the right foot of the offender is missing or is entirely unserviceable, the punishment of amputation of the other hand or foot, as the case may be, shall not be imposed and the offender shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years and with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes.

(4) Whoever, being an adult, is guilty of "haraabah" in the course of which he commits murder shall be punished with death imposed as hadd.

(5) Punishment under sub-section (3), except that under the second proviso thereto, or under sub-section (4), shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the Court to which an appeal from the order of conviction lies, and if the punishment be of amputation, until it is confirmed and executed the convict shall be dealt with in the same manner as if sentenced to simple imprisonment.

(6) The provisions of sub-section (6) and sub-section (7) of Section 9 shall apply to the execution of the punishment of the amputation under this section.

COMMENTARY

Punishment with amputation foot from the ankle. Sentence of five years. Snatched away the bag. Appreciation of evidence. Tazkiyah-al-Shahood. No iota of doubt. Accused was caught red handed. Amount was recovered from accused. No evidence has been adduced by accused in defence for his plea for demanding of money by police or false implication Held: No justification of his conviction and sentence u/S. 17 of Ordinance, 1979. Conviction and sentence the accused u/S. 17(3) of the Ordinance 1979, was set aside but conviction and sentence of accused u/S. 412 PPC are upheld. PLJ 2007 FSC 59.

Confession is required to prove Qatl-e-Amd liable to Qisas, it shall be evidence as provided in Art. 17 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Section 304(b) of PPC does not provide for any specific evidence and thus for proof of qatl-e-amd u/S. 304 PPC any evidence warranted in circumstances may be accepted for such proof. No substantial basis for distinction in S. 302(a)(b) PPC. Section 302 PPC was made compoundable in view of right of qasis conferred by Holy Quran. This section has real basis, cases u/Clauses (b) or (c) have no justification for making them compoundable for absence of right of qasis. PLJ 2007 FSC 5.

Vehicle was hired by accused complainant was deboarded. Case remanded. Validity. Conviction could be recorded on basis of retracted confession alone if same was found voluntary and true and corroboration was sought for as a matter of prudence. Complainant was not only over powered by accused but also tied with a tree. Vehicle was snatched from complainant and in doing so force was applied, therefore, it was a patent case of robbery. PLJ 2006 FSC 112 = 2006 PCr.LJ 235.

Independent role in commission of an offence against specific individuals. Effect of. Omission to mention S. 34 PPC in the charge does not effect the case if no prejudice is called to the accused. Each accused participated actively and played a distinctive and independent role. In view of the overwhelming direct ocular evidence available on the file and not uncertain identification proved through independent witnesses, sufficient material has been brought on record to connect the appellant with the crime. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2008 FSC 149.

None of PWs had seen subjected to requirement of Tazkia-tush-Shuhood under Section 7, so punishment of Hadd could not be inflicted on accused. PLJ 2004 FSC 168 = 2004 PCr.LJ 1394.

Benefit of Doubt.--If appellant was not known to the complainant, why he was not put to identification test. The statements of the eye-witnesses are not only inconsistent interse on material points but are unbelievable as quo identity of the accused. Benefit of doubt. SBLR 2005 FSC 157(a) = 2006 PCr.LJ 101.

None of PWs had been subjected to requirement of Tazkia-tush-Shuhood under Section 7, so punishment of Hadd could not be inflicted on accused. PLJ 2004 FSC 168.

Charge leveled against accused originally was under Section 302, PPC which was altered into S. 17(4) of Haraba Ordinance. Held: Punishment for Haraba u/S. 17(4)(a) is death when imposed as Hadd. PLJ 2008 FSC 87.

All of them gone through lengthy but unshaky cross-examination. Their statements inspired confidence. Case was proved to be of simple robbery u/S. 392 P.P.C. & not of u/S. 17(3) of the Ordinance, 1979. Accused was under 18 years at the time of occurrence. Conviction was converted from S. 17(3) to that of u/S. 392 of P.P.C., while sentencing him to undergo 5 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/-. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2004 FSC 168.

There was finding of trial Court that no recovery of robbed property had been proved. Conviction was based mainly on assumption that accused alongwith co-accused had been apprehended on the spot. But such fact had not been proved from evidence. Evidence regarding time of arrest and of registration of FIR was also found contrary to the contents of FIR. Conviction & sentence in such circumstances was held baseless and as set aside. Appeal allowed. PLJ 2004 FSC 92.

Confessional statement would be sufficient piece of evidence for conviction if it was found true, voluntary and was not obtained by coercion or inducement or torture. Intrinsic value retracted judicial confession of accused has been examined by Courts below and having come to a judicious conclusion such did not inspire confidence yet was corroborated by medical evidence. Judicial or extra-judicial could be taken into consideration against maker of confessions and confessions were found to be true and voluntary, then none to look for further corroboration. Appeal dismissed. PLJ 2005 SC 746.

Accused was got recovered stolen articles. Confessional statement before Magistrate. Incident was un-witnessed one and case of prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. Only piece of evidence against accused was retracted confessional statement which was recorded after six days of arrest of accused and lacks independent corroboration from circumstantial piece of evidence. Recoveries are not of intrinsic value and cannot be relied upon as corroborative piece of evidence. PLJ 2005 SC 746.

Prosecution reliance on circumstantial evidence. Essentials. Each piece of circumstantial evidence must be above board, independently proved and the same must connect appellants with commission of crime. Pieces of evidence collected by police do not connect appellants with commission of crime allegedly attributed to him. Such circum-stantial evidence was thus, excluded from consideration. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 112 (DB) = PLD 2005 Pesh. 39.

Each piece of circumstantial evidence must be above board, independently proved and the same must connect appellants with commission of crime. Pieces of evidence collected by police do not connect appellants with commission of crime allegedly attributed to him. Such circumstantial evidence was thus, excluded from consideration. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 112 (DB).

Confessional statement would be sufficient piece of evidence for conviction if it was found true, voluntary and was not obtained by coercion or inducement or torture. Intrinsic value retracted judicial confession of accused has been examined by Courts below and having come to a judicious conclusion such did not inspire confidence yet was corroborated by medical evidence. Judicial or extra-judicial could be taken into consideration against maker of confessions and confessions were found to be true and voluntary, then none to look for further corroboration. PLJ 2005 SC 746 = PLD 2005 SC 108.