Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2560 2012 SLD 2560 2012 YLR 2408
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 6-B of 2004, decided on 22nd December, 2011
NISAR HUSSAIN KHAN AND QAISER RASHID KHAN, JJ
Abdul Jabbar Khan Khattak for Appellant. Sakhi Janan for
Respondent No. 1. Ahmad Farooq Khattak A.A.G. for the State

Mst. SALAM BIBI

VS

AMAN ULLAH and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- ---S.302/34-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)---Qatl-a-amd, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant being daughter-in-law of the deceased, was an interested witness, her testimony required independent corroboration, which was lacking in the case---Inordinate and unexplained delay of more than five hours in lodging the F.I.R.-Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner in which it was reported by the complainant---Evidence of two prosecution witnesses was not worthy of credence as it was not in conformity with the ocular account furnished by the complainant---Said witnesses had contradicted the complainant on material particulars---One of the prosecution witnesses had recorded his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. after 10 days of the occurrence, which by itself was sufficient to create doubts in his evidence---Empties of Kalashnikov recovered from the spot were not sent to the Firearms Expert to ascertain as to whether those were fired from one weapon or more---Such laxity on the part of the prosecution had adversely affected the complainant's version---Complainant had alleged the occurrence to be the result of previous blood feud between the parties---Motive being termed as the proverbial double edged weapon, the probability of substitution for the real culprits or false implication could not be ruled out---Abscondence of accused simpliciter could not be made basis for recording conviction of an accused, when the ocular and circumstantial evidence was not confidence-inspiring---Material contradictions and lacunas in the prosecution evidence, were found in the case---No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned findings of the court below so as to warrant interference therein by High Court--- Findings of Court below was accordingly maintained. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.417(2-A)---Appeal against acquittal---Scope---When an accused was acquitted by a competent court of law after facing the agonies and ordeal of protracted trial, then he would earn the…
🔒
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