Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1965 2020 SLD 1965 2020 YLR 1536
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Cr. Appeal No. 857-P and Criminal Revision No. 62-M of 2019, decision & hearing Date : 13-11-2019
WIQAR AHMAD, JUSTICE
Mian Kausar Hussain for Appellant (in Cr. Appeal No. 857-P of 2019). Haq Nawaz Assistant Advocate General for the State (in Cr. Appeal No. 857-P of 2019). Abdul Salam Buneri for
Respondent (in Cr. Appeal No. 857-P of 2019). Abdul Salam Buneri for Petit

SHOUKAT ALI

VS

THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL AND ANOTHERS

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 324,337-D,337-F(i),337-F(iii)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 324, 337-D, 337-F(i) & 337-F(iii)---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah, causing mutalahimah, hurt---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Effect---Prosecution case was that accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons including complainant sustained injuries---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be the dispute over women-folk---Record showed that lodging of report in the hospital have even otherwise been proved in the statement of the complainant as well as the supporting evidence in that respect---Medical Officer who had examined the injured in the case was examined as witness---Medical Officer, in his statement, had reproduced the detail description of the injuries found on the persons of the three injured---Said witness was cross-examined at length but nothing beneficial to the accused could be extracted---Site plan showed blood had also been recovered from the same place where one of the injured had allegedly taken refuge---Exchange of hot words between the accused and son of the complainant was an episode which preceded the crime---First Information Report as well as the examination in chief showed that complainant had expressly stated that he came out and separated the accused and his son with the help of the other two injured persons, therefore, son of the complainant had not been cited as eye-witness in the FIR as well as in the site plan---Complainant had also stated in the FIR that after some time, the accused appeared from behind the wall of his house and started firing at the injured---Said fact was cleared from the evidence of prosecution that there was some time-gap between the incident of exchange of hot words and the commission of the offence---Such circumstances could not, therefore, be construed adversely for the case of the prosecution---Injured eye-witness had fully stood the test of cross-examination and no contradiction in respect of the material particulars of the case could be brought in the cross-examination of the witness--- Investigation officer of the case was examined as prosecution witness---Nothing beneficial to 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