| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 3088 2018 SLD 3088 2018 YLR 80 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 117-B of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 07-11-2016.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Hamid Qureshi, A.A.G.
Respondent(s) by: Nemo
Criminal Appeal No. 117-B of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 07-11-2016.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Hamid Qureshi, A.A.G.
Respondent(s) by: Nemo
STATE THROUGH ADVOCATEGENERAL
VS
HAJI REHMAN
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,302
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Accused and co-accused were charged for committing murder of cousin of complainant and a passenger by hitting their jeep to the motorcycle of the deceased---Ocular account was furnished by two witnesses including complainant---Record showed that both the accused were assigned the general role of indiscriminate firing at the deceased---No specific role was ascribed to any of the accused in the report as to by whose fire shots, deceased cousin of complainant was hit and the deceased passenger---Both the witnesses of ocular account deposed that the speed of jeep of the accused was 50 to 70 km/hour and 80 km/hour respectively which hit the motorcycle of deceased from back side---Investigating Officer belied their stance by deposing that the motorcycle of the deceased was not damaged rather having marks of collusion and its back light was not broken---Only front left signal light of motorcycle was broken, which showed that the motorcycle was not hit from back but was hit from other angle---Post-mortem report did not mention such like injuries to the deceased---Complainant and eye-witnesses had deposed that fifteen empties of 7.62-bore were recovered from metalled road but they were belied by Investigating Officer---No point of recovery of empties in the site plan had been indicated by the Investigating Officer---Both the eye-witnesses contradicted each other in respect of presence of police at the spot when they reached there---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and defence had succeeded to create serious doubts and dents in the prosecution case---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Effect---Motive for the occurrence was disclosed by prosecution as blood feud as well as dispute of womenfolks, but no…
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