Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 1027 2002 SLD 1027 2002 PCRLJ 1785
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No.365 of 1999 and Murder Reference No.3 of 2000, decided on 2nd May, 2002.
MALIK HAMID SAEED AND IJAZ UL HASSAN, JJ
Barrister Zahoorul Haq for Appellant. Muhammad Tariq Javed, Dy.A. G. for the State. Barrister Masood Kausar for the Complainant.

ALIMDAD alias KHAN---Appellant

VS

THE STATE --Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302/324/337-F,337-T/34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302/324/337 F/337 T/34 Appreciation of evidence Benefit of doubt, grant of Conviction of accused must be founded on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt that would arise in prosecution case, must be resolved in favour of accused ¬Imperative for Court to examine and consider all ,relevant preceding and leading facts to occurrence, so as to arrive at a correct conclusion For giving benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts If a sole circumstance had created reasonable doubt in prudent mind about guilt of accused then accused would be entitled to benefit not as a matter of grace and concession, but as a right. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302/324/337 F/337 T/34 Appreciation of evidence Principle of If a witness was trustworthy and reliable then conviction could safely be based on his evidence, but if he was unreliable witness then it could not be utilized for purpose of passing conviction against accused If witness had given partially reliable and partially unreliable evidence, then applying device of sifting grain from chaff and seeking independent corroboration from other reliable evidence on material particulars, conviction could be based on same Court, in order to determine the issue without departure from principles of justice had to decide first as to which category the ocular testimony of a witness fell. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302/324/337 F(iii)/337 T/34 Appreciation of evidence One of eye witnesses had also sustained injuries on his person during occurrence and both eye witnesses had corroborated each other on each material point without any significant contradiction Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross examination, but nothing could be elicited to shatter their testimony and some minor discrepancies in their evidence were not sufficient to label them as completely untruthful witnesses since their evidence had received corroboration from medical evidence, motive and recoveries from spot Nothing had been pointed out to discard testimony of those witnesses Said witnesses though were closely related to the complainant party, but…
🔒
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