| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2702 2016 SLD 2702 2016 PCRLJ 541 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 52-B of 2012, decided on 26th March, 2014. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2014.
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
M. Anwar Khan Maidad Khel for Appellants. Saifur Rehman A.A.G. for the State. Anwar-ul-Haq for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 52-B of 2012, decided on 26th March, 2014. Date of hearing: 26th March, 2014.
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
M. Anwar Khan Maidad Khel for Appellants. Saifur Rehman A.A.G. for the State. Anwar-ul-Haq for the Complainant.
SHER ZAD KHAN AND ANOTHER - --AppellantS
VS
MST. ZULEKHA AND ANOTHER - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 302(b) & 337-F(ii) --------- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g) --------- Qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, badiah --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Benefit of doubt --------- Abscondence --------- Two hours' delay in F.I.R. was not explained plausibly which showed that complainant did not know accused and took time for deliberations and consultations to nominate the accused for offence --------- Complainant made dishonest improvements qua presence of accused persons and that of her own family members --------- Neither site-plan showed position of family members of deceased nor Investigating Officer recorded their statements or produced them before court --------- Site-plan negated version of complainant --------- Complainant deposed that she did not know the number of shots fired by the accused and could not tell whether she and her daughter were sitting on the cot or on the ground, but strangely enough, she remembered that her daughter was at a distance of 3/4 paces from her but could not tell whether her daughter was sitting or standing when said daughter received injury --------- Complainant claimed to have been an eye-witness but she did not remember material facts and circumstances --------- Material contradictions and improvements in complainant story created serious doubts as to her presence at the place of occurrence --------- Medical evidence belied ocular account --------- Complainant stated that distance between accused and deceased was 2 to 3 paces but no blackening marks were found by the Medical Officer --------- Prosecution was bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt --------- Where slightest doubt was created, accused was entitled to acquittal --------- Accused was favourite child of law, benefit of doubt must go to the accused regardless of the fact whether accused had taken any such plea or not --------- Daughter of deceased, the other witness, was given up on ground of mental illness but no medical certificate was produced to that effect --------- Said daughter was injured witness and deposed against complainant version; her non-production amounted to withholding best…
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