Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2200 2015 SLD 2200 2015 MLD 927
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 89-B of 2012, decided on 26th June, 2013., DATE of hearing: 26th June, 2013.
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN AND SYED AFSAR SHAH, JJ
Khawaja Muhammad Khan (Gara) for Appellants. Faridullah Khan, DAG and Iftikhar Ahmad Durani for
Respondents.

FARID ULLAH and others

VS

The STATE and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Mitigating circumstance---FIR had been reported with promptitude with all the necessary details of the incident, eliminating the possibility of concoction or deliberations on behalf of the prosecution---Parties were co-villagers inter se and were known to each other prior to the occurrence---Substitution of accused persons for the actual assailants was unbelievable, as one could not expect from father of deceased of advance age, to substitute the real culprits with that of accused persons, which was otherwise a rare phenomenon---Blood stained earth, secured from the place of occurrence, and last worn blood stained garments of the deceased taken into possession, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for Serologist opinion---Analyst report affirmed that it was human blood, and of the same group; which had proved that the deceased was done to death on the same place as alleged by the complainant in his report---Crime spot, in circumstances, had been fully established from said material pieces of circumstantial evidence---Autopsy report of the deceased had established that deceased had been done to death with firearms---Role of effective firing was assigned to accused persons---Complainant who was solitary eye-witness of the incident, had furnished the ocular account; he had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but he stood firm to his stance and successfully passed the test of cross-examination---No material contradiction, or any dent could be made by the defence testimony---Place of occurrence and other particulars of the incident, were further supplemented through cross-examination of said solitary eye-witness---No doubt complainant was the real father of the deceased, but his mere close relation, would not discard his testimony on the sole ground of his relationship---Straightforward and confidence inspiring statement of complainant, was corroborated by circumstantial evidence and medical evidence---Minor discrepancies, in the statement of complainant, would not be fatal for the prosecution case, as he was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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