Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2872 2004 SLD 2872 2004 PLD 663
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 1995, decided on 5th April, 2004. DATE of hearing: 18th March, 2004. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 7-6-1994 passed by Lahore High Court Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 849 of 1992).
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHARY, RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, JJ
M. Bilal, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Malik Rabnawaz Noon, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 3. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court fo

DILDAR HUSSAIN

VS

MUHAMMAD AFZAAL alias CHALA and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 302/34---Appreciation of- evidence---Medical evidence--­Corroboration-Extent and scope---Medical evidence is always treated to be of confirmatory nature and it does not identify the accused involved in the commission of offence. The State v. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others 1995 SCMR 635; Mahmood Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 and Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1997 SCMR 866 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302/34---Appreciation of evidence---Related witness, credibility of---Principles---Relationship of the witness with the complainant party alone is not sufficient to discard his evidence unless he is proved to have an ulterior motive to involve the accused in the case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 302/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal---Relationship of the eye witness with the complainant party alone was not sufficient to discard his testimony unless he was proved to have an ulterior motive for false implication of accused in the commission of the offence---No question was put to the eye-witness during cross-examination with regard to his relationship with the complainant party, nor it had been proved on record that on account of such relationship he had deposed with ulterior motive against the accused---Said eye-witness had fully supported the prosecution case qua the present accused and his solitary deposition had furnished trustworthy incriminating evidence against the accused---Quality of evidence and not its quantity had always settled the guilt or innocence of accused in criminal cases---High Court had not considered the statement of the aforesaid eye-witness from such angle and, thus, had ignored an important piece of evidence---Impugned acquitting the accused was consequently set aside and the of Trial Court was restored convicting him under S.302/34, P.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine---Appeal was accepted accordingly. The State v. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others 1995 SCMR 635; Mahmood Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 127; Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1997 SCMR 866; Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi PLD 1980 SC 225 and Ghulam Sikandar v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492