| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2056 2018 SLD 2056 2018 YLR 1900 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 467-P, 783-P of 2016, Criminal Revisions Nos. 102-P of 2014 and 6-P of 2017, decided & hearing on 09-10-2017.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Asadullah for Appellant. Mian Arshad Jan, A.A.G. for the State. Barrister M. Zahur-ul-Haq for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 467-P, 783-P of 2016, Criminal Revisions Nos. 102-P of 2014 and 6-P of 2017, decided & hearing on 09-10-2017.
LAL, JAN KHATTAK, JUSTICE QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Asadullah for Appellant. Mian Arshad Jan, A.A.G. for the State. Barrister M. Zahur-ul-Haq for the Complainant.
ZAHIR REHMAN
VS
SAEED ALI RAZA SHAH AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that complainant, his father, brother and a relative were negotiating a matter with the accused party regarding the landed property given by them to the accused party on sharecropping---During negotiation, accused persons got infuriated and by entering into the Baithak fired at them with lethal weapons, with which brother and relative of complainant were hit and died on the spot, while complainant and his father escaped unhurt---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over landed property given by the complainant side to the accused on rent---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by the complainant and his father---Said eye-witnesses were closely related to both the deceased---Evidence of eye-witnesses hardly provided a true account of the occurrence---Distance between the accused persons and the eye-witnesses in the site plan would show that all the three accused and the eye-witnesses were standing in close proximity with each other; in such situation, if a group of three persons fires indiscriminately at the eye-witnesses and that too with lethal weapons, then there would hardly be a chance of missing the target---Said aspect of the case showed that both the eye-witnesses were not present on the spot when the occurrence had taken place---If they were present on the spot at the time of firing, they must have received some firearm injuries on their bodies---After discarding the evidence of eye-witnesses, no ocular account was left with the prosecution to prove the offence against the accused persons---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Interested witness---Scope---Testimony of closely related witness---Reliance---Evidence given by related witness could not be…
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