Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3284 2007 SLD 3284 2007 PLJ 226
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 265 of 2005, decided on 26.6.2006.
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI & HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ.
Mr. Javed Aziz Sindhu, ASC for Petitioners. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, ASC for State.

KHAIR MUHAMMAD and anothers

VS

STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 185(3)--Conviction and sentence recorded against accused by trial Court--Appeal against conviction dismissed--Assailed--Appreciation of evidence--In consequence to the verdict given by the High Court, fresh evidence was not required to be recorded in the re-trial and the petitioners having accepted the remand order in toto, did not earlier raise any objection at any stage to the admissibility of evidence recorded by the special Court--Presiding officer of which was an Additional Sessions Judge, who having fulfilled all requirements of law, provided full opportunity to accused to cross examine the witnesses--Courts established under Suppression of Anti-Terrorist Activities Act, 1975 were competent to try the offences committed with use of the automatic and semi-automatic weapons and in the present case, the cognizance was taken by the Special Court as T.T. Pistols were used in the crime, therefore, notwithstanding the jurisdictional defect in the trial, the technical objection regarding the admissibility of the evidence recorded by the Special Court, has no legal fore--Petition dismissed. [P. 228] A & B Related Witnesses-- ----False implication--Mere relationship is not sufficient to hold a witness interested or discard his evidence as the accused were also related to the witnesses--As the accused were also related to witness, therefore, there would be no chance of false implication or substitution. [P. 229] C Ocular Witness-- ----Ocular witness--Conflicting opinion of High Court regarding the admissibility and reliability of the evidence of recovery which has only corroborative value could not effect the credibility of the ocular account. [P. 229] D Evidence-- ----Exclusion of recovery of weapon would have neither any material effect on culpability of accused nor evidentiary value of direct evidence of unimpeachable character would be reduced and consequently Court need not to go into the question regarding admissibility or reliability of evidence of recovery of weapon of offence. [P. 229] E Judgment Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J.--This petition seeking leave to appeal has…
🔒
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