| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 1230 2003 SLD 1230 2003 PCRLJ 1165 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2000, heard on 22nd January, 2003
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, C.J. AND IJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J
Muhammad ZahoorulHaq for Appellant. Ejaz Khan for the State. Qazi Muhammad Anwar for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 2000, heard on 22nd January, 2003
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, C.J. AND IJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J
Muhammad ZahoorulHaq for Appellant. Ejaz Khan for the State. Qazi Muhammad Anwar for the Complainant.
MAQSOOD KHAN
VS
THE STATE and another
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence ---F.I.R. which subsequently was treated as a `dying declaration had shown that deceased before his death had given a simple and straightforward account of the occurrence, though he had not mentioned the details about the origin of the altercation and cause thereof---Only witness in the case, had also given a simple and straightforward narration of the occurrence which inspired confidence---Ocular account, as spelt out from dying declaration and statement of prosecution witness was, perfectly in accord with the medical evidence---Contention that dying declaration was not free from tinge of prompting, was repelled, because nothing was on record to show that persons accompanying deceased to the Police Station had a motive to falsely implicate accused---Absence of enmity between the parties, was another factor which had ruled out possibility of prompting deceased to falsely implicate the accused---Possibility of substitution was reduced to nil as accused was single and occurrence had taken place in broad ¬daylight---Distance shown in the site-plan could not be of much consequence as site-plan was not a substantive piece of evidence, unless the witnesses admitted when confronted with its details, that it was prepared at their instance, but in the present case eye-witness was not confronted therewith---Prolonged, noticeable and unexplained abscondence of accused for more than four years, would go a long way to corroborate and strengthen the truth of prosecution version---Charge against accused having been proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, accused had rightly been convicted by the Trial Court--¬Cause of altercation or what preceded it as a factor constituting motive to kill deceased, was shrouded in mystery as none of the witnesses including dying declaration of deceased had shed sufficient light on that aspect of case---Accused despite being armed with Klashnikov, did not hit any vital part of the body of deceased and did not repeat fire notwithstanding the fact that there was none to intervene--¬Case against accused in circumstances was not such where an extreme penalty of death…
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