| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2863 2004 SLD 2863 2004 PCRLJ 167 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002, decided on 2nd July, 2003. Dates of hearing: 5th, 10th and 11th June, 2003. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court, Dated 30 7 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2002).
MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, CHIEF, JUSTICE, KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, JUSTICE
Ashfaque Hussain Kiani and Mallick Muhammad Zarait Khan, Advocates for Appellants. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Raja Ibrar Hussain, A.G. and Riaz Navid Butt, Additional Advocate General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2002, decided on 2nd July, 2003. Dates of hearing: 5th, 10th and 11th June, 2003. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court, Dated 30 7 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2002).
MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, CHIEF, JUSTICE, KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, JUSTICE
Ashfaque Hussain Kiani and Mallick Muhammad Zarait Khan, Advocates for Appellants. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. Raja Ibrar Hussain, A.G. and Riaz Navid Butt, Additional Advocate General for the State.
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD AND ANOTHER --AppellantS
VS
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ AND 5 OTHERS --RespondentS
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 497
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -- S. 497 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302 Bail, grant of ¬Principles Statements of the eye-witnesses after recording their evidence, had to be examined closely and to be appreciated, in minute details at the time of conclusion of the trial Deep scrutiny of evidence was not permissible nor was the requirement of law at the stage of bail ¬Court of law, however, was not precluded from tentatively perusing the evidence of the eye witnesses, the recovery witnesses, the medical report, the other connecting evidence and the plea of defence, if any and to form a tentative opinion as to whether accused was prima facie connected with commission of offence of murder or not Court, at the stage of deciding bail, need not enter upon a detailed appreciation arid examination of evidence Question, however, could not be decided in vacuum and Court had to look at the material available If the answer was in positive in forming a tentative opinion as to whether accused was prima facie connected with the commission of offence of murder or where the sentence provided was either death or life imprisonment, then refusal of bail was a rule while grant of bail was an exception Credibility, scrutiny and truthfulness of the witness was to be adjudged by the Trial Court and it was not within the domain of the superior Courts while deciding a bail application Detailed scrutiny of the eye witnesses should be left to be made by the Trial Court at the time of appreciation of evidence after the conclusion of the trial. Muhammad Hanif v. Manzoor and others 1982 SCMR 153; Ghulam Nabi v. Ahmad Hussain and 2 others 1980 PCr.LJ 446; Haji Rehmatullah and another v. The State 1979 PCr.LJ 36 and Gohar Rehman v. Ali Zaman and another 1982 PCr.LJ 495 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) -- S. 302 Appreciation of evidence In every criminal case particularly in murder cases the evidence of eye witnesses was of vital importance and there were numerous cases in which accused were convicted on solitary statement of one eye witness provided his statement rang true ¬Counter version or the subsequent version in the subsequent challan should be of equal substance or of some…
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