| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2605 2016 SLD 2605 2016 PCRLJ 1378 |
Peshawar High Court
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
Sakhi Janan Khattak for Appellant. Saif ur Rehman, Additional A.G. for the State. Alamgir Wazir for the Complainant.
ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMKANI AND MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, JUSTICE
Sakhi Janan Khattak for Appellant. Saif ur Rehman, Additional A.G. for the State. Alamgir Wazir for the Complainant.
NAEEM KHAN
VS
. STATE THROUGH AAG AT BANNU AND another--RespondentS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Case was of single accused, and to put the rope against the neck of an accused charged singly, there must be ocular account of unimpeachable character, trustworthy, confidence inspiring, corroborated by other material circumstantial evidence---Ocular account in the case had been furnished by solitary witness, who was the father of deceased---Said witness during his cross-examination, introduced some new events and circumstances, which had never mentioned in his report, totally negating his earlier stance---Delay of 50 minutes in lodging FIR had not been explained in initial report---Complainant made dishonest improvements, and hot and cold of complainant in same breath, cast serious doubts about his presence on the spot, and his conduct was quite unnatural and unbelievable---Medical evidence, did not corroborate the ocular account of the complainant---Occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the complainant, but had taken place in some other manner---Recovery of blood stained earth from the spot, last worn blood stained clothes, recovery of crime empties and the autopsy report of the deceased, though had established the murder of the deceased with fire-arm on the spot, but by whom, was shrouded in mystery---No credible evidence being available to support the prosecution version, abscondence of accused, itself would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of accused---Prosecution evidence being highly discrepant, and full of infirmity, had created a genuine doubt regarding the participation of accused in the commission of crime---Impugned being not sustainable, appeal was allowed, accused was acquitted of the charge, and was set at liberty, in circumstances. Muhammad Ishaque v. The State 2007 SCMR 108; Riaz Ahmed's case 2010 SCMR 846; Ijaz Ahmed's case 1997 SCMR 1279; Saifullah v. The State 1985 SCMR 410; Riaz Masih v. The State 1985 SCMR 1730 and Siraj v. Crown PLD 1956 Federal Court 123 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Finding of guilt of accused, must not be based on probabilities to be…
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