| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 524 2013 SLD 524 2013 PCRLJ 1122 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 82-A and Criminal Revision No. 29-A of 2009, decided on 6th March, 2013
YAHYA AFRIDI AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ
Fazal-e-Haq Abbasi for Appellants. M. Nawaz Khan Swati for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant/
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 82-A and Criminal Revision No. 29-A of 2009, decided on 6th March, 2013
YAHYA AFRIDI AND WAQAR AHMAD SETH, JJ
Fazal-e-Haq Abbasi for Appellants. M. Nawaz Khan Swati for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant/
Respondent
MUHAMMAD RIAZ and 2 others
VS
The STATE and another
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b),324,34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence took place at the time when there was complete dark in the area---Occurrence having allegedly been witnessed by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, who were close relatives of the deceased, their testimony was to be looked and adjudged minutely with care and caution---Report which was lodged by the complainant after a considerable delay, seemed to be made after preliminary inquiry, consultation and deliberation---Three ladies were allegedly present inside the house, but none of them had seen the occurrence---None from the neighbours had allegedly seen the occurrence---Complainant, later on introduced existence of electric tube at the time of occurrence, which was strongly negated by Investigating Officer---Nothing was on record that arms and ammunitions recovered at the pointation of accused, were actually owned and possessed by them and used as crime weapon in the commission of offence---Both the prosecution witnesses were found contradicting each other on material aspects of case i.e. crime weapons, source of light, manner and mode of attack---Said witnesses were not found confidence inspiring and trustworthy and could not be believed---Prosecution had failed to prove the motive---Prosecution had suppressed material facts and occurrence was shrouded in mystery and it could safely be concluded that either it was a case of no evidence, or occurrence did not take place in the manner as suggested by the prosecution---Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt, they were acquitted extending them benefit of doubt; and released, in circumstances. Muhammad Arif Baloch and another v. The State and another 2009 SCMR 536; Muhammad Hussain v. The State 2008 SCMR 345 and Ghulam Qadir v. State 2008 SCMR 1221 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Appreciation of evidence---Principles---Prosecution had to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Evidence produced by the prosecution should prove uninterrupted chains to involve accused for…
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