Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2660 2017 SLD 2660 2017 PCRLJ 779
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 04-04-2016.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Amir Gulab Khan
Respondent(s) by: Naeem-ud-Din and Sabir Shah, A.A.G.

MUHAMMAD WALI SHAH AND ANOTHER

VS

STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,324,337-F(i)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account---Allegations against the accused persons were that accused party assaulted the complainant party, one person died and other received injuries during occurrence---Ocular account was furnished by injured/complainant and three eye-witnesses---Injured/complainant reiterated the same facts as narrated in the FIR---Eye-witness stated that he along with other eye witnesses reached the place of occurrence on hearing noise and saw that accused persons were engaged in quarrel with the complainant over the turn of water to lands---Deceased reached there in order to stop the scuffle between the parties, but the accused persons gave him spade blows---Other eye-witnesses narrated the same facts as stated by eye-witness---Investigating Officer prepared site plan of the occurrence but did not mention the names of eye-witnesses---Investigating Officer made deliberate and dishonest improvements by non-mentioning the names of eye-witnesses in the site plan, thus his testimony lost its credibility and evidentiary value---Such careless act of Investigating Officer left the impression that occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecution---Circumstances created doubt about the veracity of prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused persons---Accused persons, in circumstances, were acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Improvements and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses---Effect---Improvements made by the prosecution witnesses in order to strengthen its case, lost its credibility and evidentiary value---Witness making contradictory statements or improvements in order to bring in line his testimony with the prosecution case, if found deliberate and dishonest, cast serious doubt on his veracity. Farman Ahmed v. Muhammad Inayat and others 2007 SCMR 1825 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(i) &…
🔒
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