| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 599 2015 SLD 599 2015 YLR 27 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 113-B of 2011, decided on 30th September, 2013
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J
Umer Qayum Khan for Appellant. Qudrat Ullah Khan D.A.G. for the State. Muslim Jan for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 113-B of 2011, decided on 30th September, 2013
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J
Umer Qayum Khan for Appellant. Qudrat Ullah Khan D.A.G. for the State. Muslim Jan for
Respondent
ASHRAF KHAN
VS
ZAFFAR IQBAL and others
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 336,34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417(2A),417(2),410
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.336 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)---Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Matter was reported by the complainant after a delay of 1 hour and 40 minutes without any plausible explanation---Inference would be that time between the alleged incident and report had been consumed by the complainant in deliberation and consultation---Injured complainant had been examined 10 minutes prior to his report---Case of two versions, one furnished by Medical Officer, while the other furnished by the complainant and prosecution witnesses; which of the two versions, was correct was shrouded in mystery, which had cast serious doubt about the veracity and credibility of the injured complainant---Dishonest improvements made by the complainant in his court statement seemed to be deliberate and intentional, which thus, lost its credibility and evidentiary value---Neither any blood from the spot, nor blood stained clothes of the complainant had been secured by the Investigating Officer---Spades and topaks allegedly used in the commission of offence, had not been recovered, either from the direct or indirect possession of accused persons---Prosecution witness, who had furnished the ocular account of the incident, had not established his presence at the spot with the complainant---Conduct of prosecution witness, who was real nephew of the complainant was against natural human behaviour, as his real uncle was being beaten by accused and he despite being present on the spot became a silent spectator without any effort to rescue him from the clutches of accused---Both the complainant and prosecution witness who being closely related, were interested and inimical towards accused, had tried to improve their version by making dishonest improvement; they had contradicted each other on material points---Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the complainant and prosecution witness; they had concealed the actual facts and had not come with clean hands---Complainant had failed to prove loss of his eye and destruction or…
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