| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2392 2017 SLD 2392 2017 YLR 1376 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 263-P of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 9-3-2017.
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE, SYED AFSAR SHAH, JUSTICE
Noman ul Haq Kakakhel for Petitioner. Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, A.A.G. and Barrister Amirullah Chamkani for
Respondent No. 2.
Criminal Appeal No. 263-P of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 9-3-2017.
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE, SYED AFSAR SHAH, JUSTICE
Noman ul Haq Kakakhel for Petitioner. Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, A.A.G. and Barrister Amirullah Chamkani for
Respondent No. 2.
ZUHRAB GUL
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation against the accused was that the accused along with absconding co-accused armed with firearms entered the house of complainant and opened fire at complainant party, as a result of which five persons died at the spot and two were injured---One injured, later on, succumbed to the injuries---Prosecution case besides the ocular account of injured witnesses, rested on the dying declaration of deceased then injured, in the shape of marasila, which was not only endorsed by Medical Officer/ prosecution witness but had also furnished a certificate on its margin about the consciousness and capability of the deceased then injured to make a statement---Medical officer had furnished statement only to the extent of conducting autopsy on the dead bodies of the two deceased but he was not examined to the extent of deceased then injured and injured witness---Medico legal reports of deceased then injured, injured witness and endorsement and certificate over the dying declaration, borne the signature of Medical Officer/witness---Said witness (Medical Officer) could not be examined due to some misunderstanding---On the one hand, six persons were done to death and one person had sustained injuries, on the other hand, five persons had been directly charged for the commission of offence---In case of non-examination of the Medical Officer/witness to the extent of initial examination of the deceased (then injured) and verifying the factum of his report in his presence would not only amount to deprive the prosecution from important evidence but necessary for the administration of justice---High Court remanded the case to the Trial Court, after setting aside conviction and sentences of the accused, for re-examining of Medical Officer/witness with regard to Medico Legal Reports of injured and deceased then injured. Ali and another v. Crown PLD 1952 FC 71; Fazal Elahi and others v. Crown PLD 1952 Lah. 388; Dildar v. The State through Pakistan Narcotics Control Board…
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