Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2655 2017 SLD 2655 2017 PCRLJ 731
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2013, decision Dated: 28-05-2015. hearing Dated: 13-05-2015. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Court Dated 25.09.2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 48 of 2009)
CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, JUSTICE RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sardar Karam Dad Khan, Barrister Hamayun Nawaz Khan
Respondent(s) by: Ch. Shoukat Aziz

SAID AKBAR AND ANOTHER

VS

SARDAR GHULAM HUSSAIN KHAN THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 148,149,324,337A(i),337-F(i),506

Law: Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)

Section: 13

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 148, 149 & 506---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing Shajjah-i-Khafifah, Damiyah, rioting, common object, criminal intimidation, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---FIR was lodged after one hour of the occurrence---Medical report corroborated injuries inflicted on the complainant party as narrated in the FIR---No major contradiction, was found in the statement of the witnesses---Evidence of the eye-witnesses, could not be brushed aside, until some gross contradictions would come on record---Discrepancies pointed out in the case, were minor in nature, which could be ignored---Witnesses, had not been cross-examined by the defence side, even no question regarding the place, manner and time of occurrence had been put to the witnesses---If a portion of a statement was not challenged in cross-examination same would be deemed to be admitted---Manner, place and time of occurrence, were not denied---Occurrence having taken place in a house, presence of the witnesses seemed to be natural---Defence, failed to bring any piece of evidence to the effect that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence, was doubtful---Witness who had got recorded his statement in a natural manner, though had not seen the occurrence, but he supported the prosecution version regarding the place, time, manner of occurrence and presence of the parties at the relevant time---Recovery of pistol, appeared to be doubtful as same had been effected five days after the arrest of accused---No explanation had been offered regarding the non-recovery of empties/cartridges---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, was also available on record---Much reliance could not be placed on the recovery in such a situation---Ocular account furnished by the prosecution, being reliable and no material contradictions, having come on record, recovery which was one of the corroborative pieces of evidence, had become immaterial---Contention, that stone with which injury was inflicted by accused to the injured having not been recovered, and that had made the case doubtful, 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