| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 388 2020 SLD 388 2020 SCMR 319 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 23-11-2015. (Against the judgment Dated 29.09.2011, passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench on Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 06 of 2011)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Talat Mahmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court Nos. 1 and 2. Waqar Ahmed, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
Criminal Appeal No. 375 of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 23-11-2015. (Against the judgment Dated 29.09.2011, passed by the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench on Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 06 of 2011)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Talat Mahmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record
Respondent(s) by: Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court Nos. 1 and 2. Waqar Ahmed, Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
MST. MIR ZALAI
VS
GHAZI KHAN AND OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Unreliable eye-witnesses---Occurrence took place after dark and no independent proof had been produced by the prosecution regarding availability of electric light at the spot---Circumstances in which the FIR had been lodged were quite suspicious and the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court were admittedly chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time---In order to fill such lacuna the prosecution had relied upon the statement of a prosecution witness but the reason provided by him was not supported by the reason statedly found by the investigating officer during the investigation---Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution had claimed that while handling the deceased their clothes had been smeared with the blood of the deceased but admittedly no such blood-stained clothes of the said eye-witnesses had been secured or produced---In these circumstances the High Court had concluded that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were not reliable and in all likelihood they had not witnessed the murder in issue---Such conclusion reached by the High Court was not open to any exception---Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the occurrence in this case had…
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