| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1607 2020 SLD 1607 2020 1322 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 459-P of 2017, decision Dated:30-10-2019, hearing Date : 20-10-2019
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
Jalal-ud-Din Akbar-e-Azam Gara for Appellant.Mujahid Ali Khan, AAG for the State.Sareer Ahmad for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 459-P of 2017, decision Dated:30-10-2019, hearing Date : 20-10-2019
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
Jalal-ud-Din Akbar-e-Azam Gara for Appellant.Mujahid Ali Khan, AAG for the State.Sareer Ahmad for the Complainant.
MOMIN KHANVSTHE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302,324,337-F(iii),34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(iii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for their presence at the place of occurrence---Un-natural conduct of eye-witness---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons sustained injuries---Complainant/injured succumbed to the injuries---Previous blood feud between the parties had been alleged as motive behind the occurrence---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by one eye-witness---Record showed that in examination-in-chief, the eye-witness had narrated the same story as set forth by the deceased then injured in his initial report---Eye-witness, in cross-examination had deposed that he and witness (abandoned) accompanied the deceased, then injured, to the hospital where the police in their presence recorded his statement---Said witness further deposed that other witness did not accompany them to the hospital, rather he himself reached the hospital---Contrary to the statement of eye-witness, other witness deposed that he accompanied the deceased, then injured, to the hospital, who reported to police in injured condition in presence of the Medical Officer and he verified his report---Testimony of witness excluded the presence of eye-witness at the time of shifting the deceased, then injured, to the hospital and at the time of report allegedly made by the deceased then injured---Perusal of initial report revealed that it did not bear the signature or thumb impression of alleged eye-witness---No explanation, much less, plausible had been furnished by eye-witness as to why eye-witness or abandoned witness did not sign/thumb impressed the report of the deceased then injured as verifier---Similarly, the author of murasila had also not furnished any explanation to the effect that when he recorded the report of the deceased then injured where said witnesses were shown as eye-witnesses then why the report was not verified through them---Contradicting the report, eye-witness…
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