| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 821 2010 SLD 821 2010 PLJ 204 |
Peshawar High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 73 of 2007, decision & hearing Dated: 03.06.2009.
SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, JUSTICE, M. ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate for State. Mr. Ghulam Hur Khan Baloch, Advocate for Complainant.
Crl. Appeal No. 73 of 2007, decision & hearing Dated: 03.06.2009.
SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, JUSTICE, M. ALAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Mr. Abdul Latif Khan Baloch, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Saleem Ullah Khan Ranazai, Advocate for State. Mr. Ghulam Hur Khan Baloch, Advocate for Complainant.
HANIF ULLAH ALIAS HANIF
VS
STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence recorded against appellant by trial Court--Challenge to--Ocular testimony of solitary eye-witness--Complainant is not only a related, but also a chance witness--Therefore, corroboration for his statement from other sources is required as well as on ground that he is solitary witness of case--First part of his statement is not appealing to mind that three accused including one father and two sons, due to mere altercation over sale of a quail, joined hands to kill deceased--This is also not appealing to mind that all three assailants were waiting for deceased rightly in front of mosque of village which is a public place and right under a 100 watts bulb installed over their heads--Medical evidence is in sheer conflict with ocular testimony of complainant--Deceased was not hit in mode and manner as alleged by eye-witness--Lack of circumstantial support to ocular testimony from physical features of spot and conflict of medical evidence aggravates impact of doubt--Delay in lodging report reflects doubt on presence of complainant on spot and hits towards consultations and deliberations before nominating accused--Exaggeration of number of accused by attributing no over act but including acquitted father and brother of convict-appellant is also not ignorable and creates a dent of doubt in whole prosecution case--Ocular testimony of solitary eye-witness, who is a chance witness, cannot be relied upon for conviction on capital charge because he has been belied by medical evidence as well as physical features of scene of occurrence coupled with unconvincing version of prosecution and weakness of motive--Short period of alleged abscondence of accused is of no use--Prosecution has miserably failed to prove case against accused beyond shadow of doubt--Both co-accused were rightly acquitted and convict-appellant was wrongly convicted--Appeal accepted. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SYED YAHYA ZAHID GILANI, JUSITCE:---.----- Rehmatullah and his two sons Hanifullah and Rifatullah were tried by learned Sessions Judge, D.I.Khan under Sections 302/34 PPC, in case FIR No. 42 dated 26.8.2005 of Police…
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