| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1958 2005 SLD 1958 2005 PLD 221 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 208, 217, Murder Reference No. 4 and Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2003, decided on 24th May, 2005. dates of hearing: 29th and 31st March, 2005.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND, JEHAN ZAIB RAHIM, JJ
Qazi Muhammad Arshad for Appellants. Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati for
Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 208, 217, Murder Reference No. 4 and Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2003, decided on 24th May, 2005. dates of hearing: 29th and 31st March, 2005.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND, JEHAN ZAIB RAHIM, JJ
Qazi Muhammad Arshad for Appellants. Muhammad Akbar Khan Swati for
Respondents
ZAHOOR AHMAD and 5 others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b)/149, 429/149, 436/149 & 148---Appreciation of evidence---General allegations had been made against the accused of either assisting the principal accused or aiding in the commission of the crime---Accused although had been attributed D.B. Shotguns, yet not a single pallet was recovered from the crime spot or from the walls wherein the firing was made---Ocular version was belied by the medical evidence---Possibility of false implication of accused could not be completely ruled out in circumstances and they were acquitted 'on benefit of doubt accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b)/149, 429/149, 436/149 & 148---Appreciation of evidence---Guidelines---Where the parties do not come out with the true story, each party generally tries to minimize its own part in the incident---Court in such a case must not be deterred by the incompleteness of the tale from drawing the inferences which probably flow from the evidence and the circumstances---It is not only legally possible but is also a legal necessity to act on the third probable version which is shorn of embroidery and falsehood of both the interested parties. Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others PLD 1962 SC 502 and Zahid Parvez v. The State PLD 1991 SC 558 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b)/149, 429/149, 436/149 & 148---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of six hours in lodging the F.I.R. on the crime spot was not fatal to the case in view of the peculiar and horrifying .features of the crime---Minor contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses being negligible could be safely ignored---Ocular account as a whole could not be discarded only because it was not supported by medical evidence---Crime room had caught fire due to the act of the principal accused and the assistance rendered by his co-accused could not be brushed aside---Motive for-the occurrence against both the accused had been admitted by the defence---Parties being neighbours were well-known ,to each other and had come in close contact exchanging harsh' words 'before the commission of the offence, question of misidentification…
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