| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2366 2013 SLD 2366 2013 PCRLJ 1858 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2010, decided on 12th September, 2012
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL AND ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JJ
Amir Gulab Khan for Appellant. Sohail Akhtar for the Complainant. Ikramullah Khan, A.A.G. for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2010, decided on 12th September, 2012
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL AND ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JJ
Amir Gulab Khan for Appellant. Sohail Akhtar for the Complainant. Ikramullah Khan, A.A.G. for the State
TAJ MUHAMMAD
VS
BACHA MUHAMMAD and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)(c)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Self-defence right of--- Scope--- Sentence, reduction in---Complainant charged accused for murder of his son in his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. after three days of the occurrence---Complainant had stated that neither he had seen accused while firing at his son nor that fact had been stated to him by someone---Story as narrated by the prosecution, was not believable, in circumstances---Complainant had failed to show any motive as to why accused was prompted to kill his son; and even he failed to produce a single witness from the inmates of his house to prove that his son/deceased had left the house in the company of accused---Accused took the plea of his self-defence from the very beginning and his said plea was corroborated by site plan---No enmity between accused and the deceased had been established on record---Prosecution had failed to advance any motive as to why accused had killed the deceased---Occurrence was unseen and prosecution had failed to produce a single witness to prove that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused on the way while going from the house of the complainant to the house of accused---Except the statement of father of the deceased, which too, did not ring true, no evidence was produced by the prosecution in support of its case---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Accused did the act in exercise of his right of self-defence, but he had exceeded the same, keeping in view the nature of injuries on the person of the deceased---Conviction of accused was altered from that of S.302(b), P.P.C., to S.302(c), P.P.C. and his sentence from life imprisonment was also altered from life imprisonment to ten years' R.I., and benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to accused. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Defence plea---Prosecution to prove its case---Duty of prosecution to prove its case against accused beyond doubt, did not diminish on raising of defence plea---Defence was not supposed to disprove the case of prosecution---Defence plea could be taken, could not be taken, and could…
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