| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 40 2015 SLD 40 2015 PLD 125 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2011, decided on 11th September, 2014
QAISER RASHID KHAN AND ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JJ
Shabir Hussain Gigyani for Appellant.Mujahid Ai Khan, A.A.G. for the State. Saeedullah Khan for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 2011, decided on 11th September, 2014
QAISER RASHID KHAN AND ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JJ
Shabir Hussain Gigyani for Appellant.Mujahid Ai Khan, A.A.G. for the State. Saeedullah Khan for the Complainant
MIR ALAM
VS
AMROZ KHAN and another
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Substitution of accused---Case was of single accused, who was charged for murder of the deceased---Substitution of single accused in murder charge, though was a rare phenomenon, but for recording conviction of accused charged singularly for murder, there must be ocular account of unimpeachable character, trustworthy and confidence inspiring, corroborated by other material circumstantial evidence. Dr. Israr ul Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz and another 2007 SCMR 1427 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Related witness---Both complainant and prosecution witness were close relatives of the deceased---Testimony of both said witnesses, could not be discarded on their such relationship with the deceased, provided same was trustworthy, confidence inspiring and had corroboration from other strong circumstances of the incident. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Presence of eye-witness at the spot---Proof---Requirements---Eye-witness who claimed his presence at the spot, must satisfy the mind of court through some physical circumstances or through some corroborative evidence in support of his presence at the spot. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Both the alleged eye-witnesses had failed to establish their presence on the spot and to prove the occurrence in the mode and manner as alleged in the F.I.R.---None of said witnesses, having witnessed the occurrence, their testimony, which otherwise was suffering from material contradictions, and discrepancies, getting no corroboration from the site plan, medical evidence; and other circumstances of the incident, could not be believed and relied upon for recording conviction---Trial Court had given self-clashing findings; and had drawn unfair conclusion from the evidence on record---No weapon of offence, had been recovered from direct or indirect possession of accused; nor accused had confessed his guilt before the competent court of law---Mere recovery of crime empties, blood from the spot and the blood stained garments…
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