| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 259 2019 SLD 259 2019 PCRLJ 46 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 197-A of 2010, decision & hearing Dated: 05-10-2017.
SYED AFSAR SHAH, JUSTICE SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Qazi Shams-ud-Din and Saeed Ahmad Awan
Respondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Zubair, AAG
Criminal Appeal No. 197-A of 2010, decision & hearing Dated: 05-10-2017.
SYED AFSAR SHAH, JUSTICE SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Qazi Shams-ud-Din and Saeed Ahmad Awan
Respondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Zubair, AAG
RIAZ AHMED
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Occurrence, which was unseen, took place 45 days prior to lodging of FIR---Most of the witnesses in the case, were Police Officials---Witness of recovery of deadbody and weapon of offence, a retired Police Officer, did not know as to when and where the dead body of the deceased was recovered---Testimony of said witness could not be relied upon, being inconsistent---Evidence of another witness, too was of no worth being hearsay---Sharp contradiction existed in the statements of Lady Doctor, who examined the dead body of the deceased, and other prosecution witness---Star witness of the occurrence, did not know the exact date when the occurrence took place and also when the informer informed her about the occurrence---Uncle of the deceased who deposed to be marginal witness to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, contradicted his own statement by narrating two versions in the same breath---Possibility of concoction in the statement of said witness, could not be ruled out---Nothing was available on record, which could show either the report regarding gender of the deceased or sending of samples for DNA test to confirm that the deceased was the daughter of the complainant---Body of the deceased was fully mutilated and decomposed, same was not sent to Anatomy Expert for determination of firearm injury on her person---When the substantive evidence in the shape of ocular account furnished by the star witnesses, was not worth reliance, being full of material contradictions, then corroborative evidence in the shape of motive, recovery and discovery, would be of no use to the prosecution---Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt in circumstances---Conviction and sentences awarded to accused, were set aside, he was acquitted of all charges levelled against him. Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 2017 SCMR 144; Javed Iqbal v. The State PLD 2014 Lah. 62; 1998 Cr.LJ 3934; PLD 2005 SC 418; 2007 SCMR 6; 2011 YLR 1965; Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 1997 SCMR 25; Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Pir…
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