| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2038 2018 SLD 2038 2018 YLR 1850 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr. A. No. 32-B of 2014, decided & hearing on 10-10-2017.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE ABDUL SHAKOOR, JUSTICE
Anwar-ul-Haq for Appellant. Shahid Hameed Qureshi Addl. A.G. for the State. Muhammad Rasheed Khan Dhirma Khel and Salah-ud-Din Marwat for the Complainant.
Cr. A. No. 32-B of 2014, decided & hearing on 10-10-2017.
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, JUSTICE ABDUL SHAKOOR, JUSTICE
Anwar-ul-Haq for Appellant. Shahid Hameed Qureshi Addl. A.G. for the State. Muhammad Rasheed Khan Dhirma Khel and Salah-ud-Din Marwat for the Complainant.
SHAHID AMIR ALIAS NOOR KAMAL
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Charge against accused was that he duly armed with Kalashnikov along with his co-accused duly armed with rifle assaulted on the complainant party, made firing at the son of complainant with the intention to commit his murder, as a result whereof the son of complainant got hit and succumbed to injuries---Motive for the offence was a dispute over women folk---Ocular account in the case was furnished by the sole eye-witness/complainant, who was father of the deceased---First Information Report showed that motive behind the occurrence was dispute over women folk and deceased and the complainant had equal enmity with the accused, but accused fired at the deceased and left the complainant to depose against them---Complainant admitted in his cross-examination that if the accused wanted to kill him, they could easily do that as no one was present there to rescue him; in view of the said admission of the complainant, an inference could be drawn that the complainant was not present at the spot---Site plan showed that there were maize crops and kurrajat at the crime spot---Complainant admitted that he had taken the shelter in kurrajat---If there were maize crop and kurrajat, the accused could hide themselves there and without showing their identity could accomplish their target of killing the son of complainant---Said factor showed that the incident had not occurred in the mode and manner as alleged by the complainant---No conviction could be based on the basis of sole uncorroborated testimony of eye-witness---Ocular account of complainant was not believable, therefore, the recoveries, medical report, Forensic Science Laboratory Report and site plan were not material and did not furnish justification for holding that the accused had committed the offence---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness--- "Interested witness"---Evidentiary value--- Scope--- Interested witness…
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