Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2756 2018 SLD 2756 2018 PCRLJ 131
Peshawar High Court
Cr. A. No. 692 of 2011, decision & hearing Dated: 17-10-2017.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shabbir Hussain Gigyani
Respondent(s) by: Mian Arshad Jan, AAG, Aftab Khan

RIAZ

VS

AMAN ULLAH AND ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,324

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused and co-accused, duly armed came on the spot and opened fire upon the complainant party, as a result of which, two nephews of the complainant died and complainant sustained injuries---Motive for the occurrence was a quarrel took place earlier between the accused and deceased, on which deceased/brother of deceased, complained to co-accused, which annoyed the accused---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by the complainant and eye-witness---Both the said witnesses had deposed in line with what was alleged in the FIR---Witnesses had admitted that they did not know as to with whose fire shot, who was hit or that how many shots were fired by the accused---Ordinarily, no victim or witness could give photographic account of the occurrence or the details of shots fired by the accused or that with whose shot who was hit---When the deceased or injured sustained single wound the name of the accused must be specified, who had caused the fatal shot, when more than one accused were charged---In the present case, the complainant was himself injured, but was unable to point out the particular assailant, who had fired at him---Complainant could not identify that who, out of the two accused, had fired at which deceased---Eye-witness also did not know that who, amongst the two assailants, had fired at the injured and the deceased---Non-specification of the accused for firing at particular victim, in the attending circumstances of the case, showed that the charge levelled by the two witnesses against the accused persons was exaggerated one---Medical Officer, who had examined the deceased and the injured, had not given dimensions of injuries sustained by the victims, so as to know through medical evidence that more than one weapons were used and more than one persons had participated in the crime---Failure to mention the dimensions of injuries on the bodies of the victims had caused colossal damage to the prosecution case---Motive taken in the FIR for commission of the…
🔒
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