Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 3496 2007 SLD 3496 2007 PLJ 119
Shariat Court (AJ&K)
Crl. A. No. 63 of 2005, decided on 12.7.2007
SYED HUSSAIN MAZHAR KALEEM, J
Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for convict Appellant. Addl. Advocate General for State. Mr. Abdul Majeed Mallick, Advocate for Complainant

MUHAMMAD LATIF--Appellant

VS

STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

Witness-- ----Principle--Testimony--Witnesses are to be believed or disbelieved on the basis of their own testimony. [P. 123] B Duty of Court-- ----Primary duty--Ascertainment of truth--A Court of disbelieve eye-witnesses it must be shown that they suppressed true facts, their presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful, they had reasons for false implication and were interested in prosecution and conviction of an accused, the eye account was in conflict with proposed corroboratory evidence and not supported by surrounding circumstances--Statements otherwise inspiring confidence could not be out rightly rejected on the sole ground of relationship--Held: Ascertainment of truth is primary duty of the Courts. [P. 123] C AJ&K Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337 & 341--Conviction and sentence awarded to appellant--Challenge to--Ocular version--Appreciation of evidence--Motive--Deceased was alleged to have killed the father of accused--Time and place of occurrence was not disputed--Accused deceased and prosecution witnesses were present at the place of occurrence at relevant time--Admittedly--When police party came at the spot deceased was injured and PW was sitting in front seat of Jeep--Accused ran away from the place of occurrence--Accused was arrested and weapon of offence was recovered at his instance in presence of witnesses--Held: Presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time particularly in view of injury found at the person of the complainant leaves no doubt--Ocular version was confidence inspiring however, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased was alleged for killing father of the convict which might have provoked him for commission of the offence--Appeal dismissed. Order The above titled appeal is directed against the judgment passed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli on 30-04-2005, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced 25 years R.I under Section 302, A.P.C, 10 years R.I under Section 324, A.P.C, Rs.5000/- Daman under Section 337, A.P.C, one month S.I under Section 341, A.P.C and six month S.I under the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts leading to the background of the appeal…
🔒
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