Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2500 2013 SLD 2500 2013 YLR 895
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 30-B, 34-B and Criminal Revision No. 10-B of 2012, decided on 19th September, 2012
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN, J
Mir Zali Khan for Appellant. Farooq Khattak Additional Advocate-General for the State. Malik Akhtar Nawaz for the Complainant

ABID USMAN

VS

The STATE and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-D---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.7---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, Jaifah---Determination of age of accused---Claim of accused was that he being juvenile, should have been tried by Juvenile Court---Accused claimed that impugned was liable to be set aside and his case be sent to the court of competent jurisdiction for trial de novo---Accused had never taken plea of his tender age, at the very initial stage of the case before the Investigating Officer, nor he had urged such ground in his bail application---Accused was supposed to raise such plea before the Trial Court---Had the accused taken such plea, Trial Court would have proceeded under S.7 of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, to ascertain his actual age---At the time of framing of charge, age of accused had been recorded as about 21 years, whereas at the time of occurrence his age came up about 18 years---Accused had annexed a birth certificate issued by the Head Teacher, who was incompetent to issue said certificate as said certificate could be issued by School Headmaster, or it was sole function of Local Council/Union Council, where the entries of births and deaths of people of concerned area were recorded---Objection of accused with regard to his tender age, was turned down, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324 & 337-D---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, Jaifah---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case rested on the statements of eleven prosecution witnesses---All were subjected to cross-examination by defence, but nothing beneficial for accused could be extracted---Prosecution witness had corroborated complainant on material particulars and reiterated the same version as given in the F.I.R.---Both said witnesses were also subjected to long and searching test of cross-examination, but no dent could be created which could shatter the edifice of prosecution case---Role of effective firing had been assigned to accused, while no injury had been attributed to rest of the accused---Trial Court came to the conclusion that it was the accused who had caused injuries to the complainant---No…
🔒
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