| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2275 2016 SLD 2275 2016 YLR 1166 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 98-B of 2012, decided & hearing on 01-04-2014.
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
Anwar ul Haq and Ahmad Farooq for Appellant. Aqal Shah Noor for
Respondents. Qudrat Ullah Gandapur, A.A.G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 98-B of 2012, decided & hearing on 01-04-2014.
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
Anwar ul Haq and Ahmad Farooq for Appellant. Aqal Shah Noor for
Respondents. Qudrat Ullah Gandapur, A.A.G. for the State.
SHER AZAM KHAN
VS
. THE STATE AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Single accused---Substitution of a single accused in a murder charge though was a rare phenomenon, but to put the rope around the neck of accused charged singularly, there must be ocular account of unimpeachable character, trustworthy and confidence inspiring, corroborated by other material circumstantial evidence. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant was real brother of the deceased, while other prosecution witness was his cousin---Illicit relation of the deceased with the wife of accused had been alleged as motive---Both said witnesses, were not only closely related to the deceased, but also inimical towards him---Complainant and other prosecution witness made improvements in their statements---Both prosecution witnesses had totally negated the earlier version and had introduced some new story which amounted to dishonest improvements in order to fill up lacunae---To rely upon such statements for maintaining the conviction and sentences was not safe---Presence of complainant and other prosecution witness with the deceased at the relevant time of the occurrence, was doubtful and not reliable in view of serious contradictions in their statements and dishonest improvements, and their complete departure from the contents of FIR---Despite presence of people at the spot at the time of occurrence and presence of shopkeepers, none from the shopkeepers or the people present in the bazaar had been examined to testify about the occurrence---Prosecution witness had stated that he had not seen the incident with his own eyes---No one from the people of locality had been cited as marginal witness to the recovery memo regarding recovery of crime pistol---Recovery of alleged crime weapon was highly doubtful which was planted one---Absence of any independent witness, and when the direct evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses had been disbelieved, it would not be safe to base conviction on recovery of pistol, which was corroborative piece of evidence---Prosecution…
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