| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2647 2004 SLD 2647 2004 PLD 193 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2003, decided on 20th April, 2004
NASIR UL MULK AND IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JJ
Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Appellants. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.A.G. for the State. Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2003, decided on 20th April, 2004
NASIR UL MULK AND IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, JJ
Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Appellants. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.A.G. for the State. Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai for the Complainant
SAADULLAH KHAN alias SAIDAL and another
VS
THE STATE and anotherComplainants
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 118
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342(1),342
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 118---Appreciation of evidence---Trial Court, after holding that claim of complainant having identified accused was not reliable and trustworthy and that accused were not responsible for the murder of deceased, could not legally convict accused persons under S.118, P. P. C. for which no charge was framed against them and no evidence was produced to connect them with the act of concealing the design to commit offence of murder of which names of real culprits were not known---No question was put to accused in their statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. to have designed the murder in question; how could accused be convicted under S.118, P.P.C. without asking them to clarify their position---Occurrence was a night incident---Complainant was old man of 50/60 years of age and claimed to have identified accused in the light of bulb installed at the Mosque where he had said his prayers---Identification was not possible in view of distance between the complainant and the bulb, as indicated in the site-plan---Claim of complainant was not true and could not be made basis for conviction of accused---Complainant had admitted in his cross-examination that he was busy in urinating at a distance of 90 paces from the Mosque when he heard the report of fire shots---Such circumstances had also negated the assertion of complainant having witnessed occurrence and identified the accused---No circumstantial or other incriminating evidence was available to connect accused with the offence---Accused through unrebutted defence evidence, had proved their presence in judicial lock up in another Police Station in another District at the time of occurrence; it could thus confidently be said that accused were not present at the site of occurrence and had no hand in the murder of deceased and that claim of complainant having witnessed the occurrence and identified accused, stood belied by a host of circumstances---Judgment of conviction passed by Trial Court against accused was set aside and they were acquitted of charge against them. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 342---Power to examine accused---Compliance with provision of…
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