Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1278 2021 SLD 1278 2021 MLD 1097
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 58P of 2016, decided on 15th October, 2019, Date of hearing: 15th October, 2019.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE, AHMAD ALI, JUSTICE
Khizar Hayat Khazana for Appellant. Rab Nawaz Khan, A.A.G. for the State. Altaf Khan for the Complainant.

ZAHID

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(g)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.302(b)QanuneShahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g)QatliAmdAppreciation of evidenceMaxim: Falsus in uno falsus in omnibusApplicabilityWitness not producedPresumptionEyewitness shown in site plan was abandoned by prosecution for unknown reasonsAdverse inference under Art.129(g) of QanuneShahadat, 1984, could be safely drawn that if that witness had entered into witness box then he would not have supported prosecution case Medical evidence was in conflict with ocular evidence and reliance of such ocular testimony was unsafeSuch evidence was not believed and was discarded Prosecution witnesses did not tell the actual truth rather posing themselves to the principle of falsus in uno, falsus in ominibus i.e. false in one thing, false in everything Believing such evidence by Court would be against administration of criminal justice resulting into judicial death of an innocent accusedEither prosecution witnesses were not present on the spot or they were not telling the truthProsecution had failed to build any nexus of accused with commission of offenceHigh Court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted the accused of the chargeAppeal was allowed in circumstances. NLR 2015 SCJ 121; PLD 2016 SC 17; 2016 SCMR 1515; 2017 SCMR 135; 2017 SCMR 1189; 2017 SCMR 960; 1984 SCMR 42; PLD 1981 SC 472; 1972 SCMR 578; 2007 SCMR 1825; 1990 SCMR 158; 2011 SCMR 474; 2018 SCMR 153; 2017 SCMR 596; 2016 PCr.LJ 30; 2015 SCMR 315 and PLD 2019 SC 527 rel. (b) Criminal trial WitnessImprovements Effect Improvement once found to be deliberate and dishonest causes serious doubts on veracity of witnesses. (c) Criminal trial Benefit of doubtScopeFor giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubtsSingle circumstance creating reasonable doubt in prudent mind about guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefit, not as a matter of grace in concession but as a matter of right. 2009 SCMR 230; 2011 SCMR 664; 2011 SCMR 646; PLD 1984 SC 433; 2012 MLD 1358; 2007 SCMR 1825; 2008 PCr.LJ 376; PLD 1994 Pesh. 114; PLD 2012 Pesh. 01; 1999 PCr.LJ 1087; 1997 SCMR 449; 2011 SCMR 820 and 2006 PCr.LJ SC…
🔒
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