Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 281 1974 SLD 281 1974 PLD 87
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1969 and Petition for Special Leave-to Appeal No. 6 of 1967, heard on 17th October 1973. dates of hearing : 16th and 17th October 1973
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, ANWARUL HAQ MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1969. Nemat Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. liaa A18 Advocate-on-Record for the State. Rashid Murtaza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record. P. S. L. A. No. 6 of 1967. Nazir Ahm

Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1969 THE STATE

VS

RAB NAWAZ AND ANOTHER AND P. S. L. A. No. 6 of 1967 GHULAM ABBAS vs RAB NAWAZ AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-Art. 58(3)-Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court from order of acquittal-Leave granted to State for "re-examination" of evidence­ Appreciation by High Court not on correct principles. (b) Criminal trial- -- Motive-"Remains shrouded in mystery"-Evidence as to motive disbelieved by Court is no reason for disbelieving direct evidence as to main incident-Such evidence, if credit-worthy can form valid basis for conviction notwithstanding obscurity of motive. (e) Criminal trial- - Witness-Credibility-Wholly wrong in principle and uncharitable to make economic or social status as the touchstone for credibility. (d) Precedent- - Everything said in a , more particularly in a criminal must be understood as having been said with reference to facts of that particular case. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) - S. 100-Plea of self-defence-Court to form its opinion as to guilt or innocence of accused upon examination of entire evidence even if such plea has failed-Prosecution not always duty bound to explain each injury on accused's person-Failure to explain such injury would not per se affect case to create a doubt in accused's favour-Use of physical force on either side developing into a melee may be the reason for injuries on accused's person. It is upon the examination of the entire evidence in the case that the Court has to form the opinion whether even if the plea of self-defence has failed, it has reacted upon the prosecution case so as to entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt. It is wholly fallacious to read the two precedent cases, (Safdar Ali v. Crown and Muhammad Aslam v. Crown) as laying down the broad principle of general application to criminal cases, that it is always the duty of the prosecution to explain each injury on the accused person, regardless of its nature. It is equally wrong to suggest that the prosecution's failure to explain any such injury would per se affect its case with the general doubt so as to entitle the accused to acquittal. To accept such an argument in its entirety would be to pervert the principle laid down in the two above­mentioned cases. The question whether the prosecution's failure in this…
🔒
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