| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1282 2015 SLD 1282 2015 PLD 1 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1-B of 2006, decision Dated: 02-10-2013.hearing Date : 07-10-2013.
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE SYED AFSAR SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Masood Iqbal and Altaf Khan, Saifur Rehman, A.A.G.
Respondent(s) by: Pir Hamidullah
Criminal Appeal No. 1-B of 2006, decision Dated: 02-10-2013.hearing Date : 07-10-2013.
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE SYED AFSAR SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Masood Iqbal and Altaf Khan, Saifur Rehman, A.A.G.
Respondent(s) by: Pir Hamidullah
NOOR SHAH GULVSASIM ULLAH AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302,377
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164,265-K,417,417(2-A)
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Nature and mode of appreciation---If the case was based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must ensure that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt was sought to be drawn, must be cogent and firmly established---Circumstances must be unerringly point towards the guilt of accused; and when taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that it must demonstrate in all probabilities that the crime was committed by the accused--- Where the evidence was of a circumstantial nature, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt was to be drawn should be in the first instance fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused---Circumstances should be of conclusive nature, and tendency and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved---Chain of evidence be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of accused, and it must be such to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by accused. Sheikh Muhammad Amjad v. State PLD 2003 SC 704 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302 & 377---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)--- Qatl-i-amd, sodomy---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant/grandfather of deceased minor boy, who claimed to be witness of last seen, did not disclose about the factum of meeting of the deceased with accused in his presence---Complainant who had improved his statement, his version of last seen was an afterthought, cooked and fabricated story and punishment of capital charge could not be awarded on such evidence of last seen---Statement of complainant did not find any support from alleged confessional statement of accused, and story of last seen had been developed after the arrest of accused---Confessional statement of accused had been recorded after 4 days of physical remand of accused---Accused being a juvenile, element of torture and threat during his physical remand on the part of the Police, could not be…