Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302(b),392

Law: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, (XXIII of 2013)

Section: 15

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,162,164,382-B,544-A

Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979

Section: 17(4)

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Circumstantial evidence required to be appreciated on the dictum that while appreciating the evidence and holding accused guilty of the charge, the facts of the case must be consistent with guilt of the accused---Chain of evidence must be completed in all respect leaving no reasonable ground about the innocence of the accused---Suspicion, however strong, could not be given preference upon the proof---Chain of events were to not break, which must be conclusive beyond any shadow of doubt. Imran Alias Dolay v. The State and others 2015 SCMR 155; Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others 2016 SCMR 274 and Naheed Akhtar v. The State 2015 YLR 1279 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention, haraabah, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after robbery---Complainant categorically stated that he knew nothing as to who committed murder of his son, he did not say anything about his son leaving his house towards crime scene on his motorcycle and about the motorcycle having been lost or taken away---Complainant got recorded statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. before Judicial Magistrate, after almost 10 days of the occurrence, improvising his earlier statement by disclosing about snatching of the motorcycle, mobile set and Rs.1500/- as well as introducing the story that a couple of days before the occurrence, he was told by his son that accused and co-accused were seen on the crime scene earlier---Complainant had advised his son to change the route, since there was no other way, therefore, the occurrence took place---Record showed that complainant had nominated and implicated the accused persons through statement recorded under S. 164 Cr.P.C., when the accused were arrested, casting doubt in his stance, whereupon no explicit reliance could be placed---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by…

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