| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 3511 2009 SLD 3511 2009 PCRLJ 1238 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos.209, 236 of 2007 and Criminal Revision No.40 of 2007, decided on 25th May, 2009.Date of hearing: 25th May, 2009.
Before Jehanzaib Rahim and Shahji Rahman Khan, JJ
Barrister M. Zahoorul Haq for Appellant. Muhammad Salim Khan and Ikramullah Khan, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos.209, 236 of 2007 and Criminal Revision No.40 of 2007, decided on 25th May, 2009.Date of hearing: 25th May, 2009.
Before Jehanzaib Rahim and Shahji Rahman Khan, JJ
Barrister M. Zahoorul Haq for Appellant. Muhammad Salim Khan and Ikramullah Khan, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
BEHROZ----Appellant
VS
THE STATE and another----Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other and had introduced improved version of their own---Both witnesses had stated that accused came out from their houses duly armed with kalashnikov, whereas in the dying declaration the deceased had not described the weapon of offence---Cumulative effect of said infirmities, contradictions and improvements in the prosecution case led to the conclusion that the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner depicted by the prosecution---Widow of deceased who appeared as witness, had not shown the presence of abandoned prosecution witness on the spot nor she claimed that he sustained injuries in the occurrence---Apart from that, non-filing of appeal against acquittal of accused under Ss.148/337-F(iii), P.P.C. for the alleged injuries sustained by abandoned prosecution witness and under Ss.302/149, P.P.C. for murder of complainant when he was injured, prosecution case had received irreparable damage and had created multiple dents and doubts in the prosecution case---Rule of benefit of doubt which was described as golden rule was essentially a rule of prudence which could not be ignored, while dispensing justice in accordance with law---Said rule was based on the maxim "It was better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted"---Care-should be taken by court in convicting an accused---Reliance of prosecution on the abscondance of accused and acquitted accused was not well placed because abscondance per se was not sufficient to prove guilt of accused---Abscondance could equally be consistent with the innocence of accused---Abscondance as a piece of conduct of accused was to be judged in the light of other evidence on the record---No reasonable grounds were available to believe that accused and acquitted accused, had taken part in the commission of offence---Prosecution, in circumstances, had not established its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge and was released. JUDGMENT SHAHJI RAHMAN…
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