| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2213 2016 SLD 2213 2016 YLR 735 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr.A. No. 77-B of 2013, decided & hearing on 14-05-2015.
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, JUSTICE
Noor Zada Khan Ahmad Zai for Appellant. Saifur Rehman Khattak, Addl. A.G. for the State Shaukat Ali Khan for
Respondents.
Cr.A. No. 77-B of 2013, decided & hearing on 14-05-2015.
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, JUSTICE
Noor Zada Khan Ahmad Zai for Appellant. Saifur Rehman Khattak, Addl. A.G. for the State Shaukat Ali Khan for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD AMEER ALIAS MERY
VS
. QADEEM GUL AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Badiah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account of injured complainant and other prosecution witness, had fully supported each other in respect of date, time of incident, place of occurrence and the narration of incident---Accused along with absconding co-accused had been charged directly for committing qatl-i-amd of the deceased, causing injuries to the complainant; and ineffective firing on other prosecution witness---Presence of accused persons at the time and place of occurrence, could not be doubted---No allegation existed of any incorrect identification of accused, as parties were known to each other---Accused could not succeed in causing a grave dent in prosecution case, with regard to his innocence, despite lengthy and taxing cross-examination---Sufficient evidence being available against accused, Trial Court had not committed any illegality in believing the ocular account---Complainant and prosecution witness being real brothers of the deceased, it could not be believed that blood relations would direct their fingers at innocent, leaving actual culprits, because such was a rare phenomenon; and in normal circumstances that theory of substitution by blood relations at the cost of real culprit was ruled out---Mere relationship was no ground at all to disbelieve the evidence, unless and until it was established by defence that those witnesses had such enmity or other consideration which could justify the witnesses to be not of truth---Defence counsel failed to pinpoint as to what was the material dent in prosecution case, which was sufficient to bring the principle of benefit of doubt into operation regarding the case of accused---Contradictions, not grave in nature, could be ignored safely, as minor contradictions, do creep in with passage of time---Both witnesses of ocular account, were in confirmatory with each other in respect of incident, its time, narration of incident, and even allegations against accused---Ocular account fully supported the medical evidence; and despite lengthy cross-examination of Medical…
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