| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2257 2020 SLD 2257 2020 PLJ 1201 |
Peshawar High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 110-B of 2018, decision Dated: 14.2.2020, hearing Date : 10.2.2020
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan Maidad Khel, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Shahid Hameed Qureshi, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents.
Crl. Appeal No. 110-B of 2018, decision Dated: 14.2.2020, hearing Date : 10.2.2020
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan Maidad Khel, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Shahid Hameed Qureshi, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents.
AMIN JAN
VS
STATE AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Held: Once the motive is alleged and is not proved, it reacts upon the quantum of sentence--In order to scrutinize the discrepancy, if any, was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to the facts and circumstances of each case, keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement--In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, however, honest and truthful they may be--Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time etc--Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person--Observed that minor discrepancies in deposition of prosecution witnesses of inconsequential nature cannot reasonably be considered as good grounds in disbelieving independent and disinterested witnesses--If importance be given to such insignificant inconsistencies there can hardly be any conviction, for seldom is there a witness whose evidence does not suffer from such inconsistencies--No doubt, mere absconsion is not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused person, but it can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence and has to be read along with substantive piece of evidence--While going through the record, it appears that after commission of the offence, the accused remained fugitive from law for more than thirty (30) years and no explanation whatsoever was given for his long abscondence--It is evident from the record that all efforts were made to arrest the accused, but the law enforcing agencies could not succeed and even the concerned Court issued the process against the appellant but it was after long thirty years when the accused was arrested to face the charges--State counsel at the tail end requested for enhancement of sentence by accepting Cr.R--Stated that when the prosecution proves its case, then the normal penalty is nothing but the sentence of death, however, we do not find ourselves in agreement with the learned State counsel, as the prosecution badly failed to establish…
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