Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss.302(c)/404---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence--­Significance---Occurrence, in the present case, no doubt was unseen, but conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence alone---Absence of direct evidence, would not mean that guilt of accused could not be fixed---Circumstantial evidence was the evidence of basic facts wherefrom, further fact, inference or natural conclusion, according to reason and logic, could be deduced---Strength of such evidence as per circumstances of the case, however, could vary---Circumstantial evidence, often was stronger and more satisfactory than direct evidence because it was not liable to delusion or fraud---Where direct evidence was either not available or witnesses were not deemed wholly, credible, circumstantial evidence, could be more convincing---Test was that it should not only be relevant, but consistent and conclusive as well and should be so convincing that circumstances or facts proved on record, must lead to a single conclusion---In order to carry conviction, however, it must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence of accused---Where either direct evidence was not available or had not been found trustworthy, conviction could be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone subject to the condition that all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of accused and no link in the chain should be missing---Events, in the present case, which took place subsequently, i.e. chase of accused and recovery of robbed property from possession of accused alongwith crime weapon, had established veracity of statements of prosecution witnesses---One of the prosecution witnesses was an independent witness and in absence of any enmity or motive to falsely implicate accused with the crime, his statement too, could not be doubted---Since empties recovered from the place of occurrence wedded with the crime weapon, it was rightly inferred by the Trial Court that accused was responsible for commission of offence. Talib Hussain v. The State 1995 SCMR 1538; Muhammad Arshad v. The State 1992 SCMR 1187; Muhammad Fayyaz alias Shako v. The State PLD 1984 SC 445;…

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