| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2463 2018 SLD 2463 2018 YLR 2462 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr. A. No. 218-B of 2017, decision Dated: 23-05-2018.
ABDUL SHAKOOR, JUSTICE SHAKEEL AHMAD, JUSTICE
Shahid Hameed, Addl. A.G. for the State.
Cr. A. No. 218-B of 2017, decision Dated: 23-05-2018.
ABDUL SHAKOOR, JUSTICE SHAKEEL AHMAD, JUSTICE
Shahid Hameed, Addl. A.G. for the State.
PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR
VS
ISLAM JAN AND ANOTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,302
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Occurrence had not taken place in the manner and mode as narrated by the complainant---Complainant, at the time of occurrence, was in possession of her personal mobile phone, but she did not inform any of her relatives about the incident and waited there till arrival of Police; which spoke of unnatural conduct of the complainant and negated her presence at the spot---Murasila, showed that the deceased was managed by the complainant on the spot, but neither her hands nor clothes, or her veil besmeared with blood; which too falsified her presence on the spot---Complainant, was not shown as identifier of the dead body, rather her two brothers were cited as identifiers---Six crime empties of 7.62 bore recovered from venue of crime were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory where it was opined that said empties were fired from one and the same weapon, which too falsified the assertion of the complainant, that the number of the assailants were two; rather it clearly suggested that it was the act of a single man which had also falsified presence of the complainant on the spot---Occurrence, in circumstances, was unseen---Considerable delay in examination of dead body also had created serious doubt on the prosecution case concerning time of occurrence as alleged by the complainant---Prosecution was bound to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt, but it had failed to substantiate its case against accused---Trial Court had considered each and every aspect of the case in its true perspective and found that the statement of the complainant was not confidence inspiring, and disbelieved her presence at the spot---For reversal of the order of acquittal, it must be shown that the of lower court was not reasonable or was wrong, or was the result of misreading or non-reading of the evidence on record, but the prosecution could not do that---Solitary statement of complainant, being neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring, was not worthy of credence---Findings recorded by the Trial…
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