| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 733 2015 SLD 733 2015 YLR 925 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 43-B of 2010, decided on 17th June, 2014
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JJ
Anwar ul Haq for Appellant. Qudratullah A.A.G. for the State. Arif Awan (Pauper Counsel) for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 43-B of 2010, decided on 17th June, 2014
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JJ
Anwar ul Haq for Appellant. Qudratullah A.A.G. for the State. Arif Awan (Pauper Counsel) for
Respondent
GUL FARAZ alias PALEY KHAN
VS
The STATE and others
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Conviction, could be recorded on the basis of statement of a solitary and interested witness, provided his testimony was worthy of credence, confidence inspiring, credible and irrefutable---Not the quantity, but quality of evidence, would be taken into consideration---Mere friendship or relationship with the deceased, would not be sufficient to discredit a witness, particularly, when there was no motive to falsely involve accused---Prime consideration for the court to accept the testimony of the eye-witnesses, was to see whether he had established his presence on the spot at the time of incident---Witness, who claimed his presence, in the present case, must satisfy mind of the court through some physical circumstances or through some corroborative evidence in support of his presence but in the present case, prosecution witnesses, could not prove their presence at the spot---Both the eye-witnesses being real brothers of the deceased, had not shown any effort to rescue their brother---Conduct of said eye-witnesses like silent spectator created reasonable doubt about their presence with the deceased---Prosecution witnesses, claimed that they were busy in cutting the trees at relevant time, but neither the axe had been shown, nor the trees---Testimony of eye-witnesses, had been contradicted by other prosecution witness, who recorded report of the complainant---Non-presence of the alleged eye-witnesses with the deceased at the relevant time, having been proved, their testimony, which was untrustworthy, and suffering from material contradictions and discrepancies, creating serious doubts in the prosecution case, could not be believed and relied upon---No crime empty had been recovered from the spot, despite indiscriminate firing by accused with automatic weapon like Kalashnikov---Recovered Kalashnikov in absence of crime empties, and Forensic Science Laboratory's report, could not advance the case of prosecution---Blood stained earth and garments, which were taken into possession, could only advance the case of prosecution to the extent that deceased was done toβ¦
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