Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1754 2021 SLD 1754 2021 PCRLJ 779
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 68-M and Criminal Revision No. 18-M of 2018, decided on 15th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 15th October, 2020.
ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE, WIQAR AHMAD, JUSTICE
Sher Muhammad Khan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 68-M of 2018). Muhammad Rashid and Sabir Shah for
Respondent (in Criminal Appeal No. 68-M of 2018). Muhammad Rashid and Sabir Shah for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 18-M of 2018). Sher Muh

NASEEB KHAN

VS

THE STATE THROUGH A.A.G. AND ANOTHERS

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),341,427,34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 341, 427 34---Qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about four hours and fifteen minutes in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of father of the complainant by firing---Previous blood feud was stated to be the motive for the commission of offence---Record showed that the time of occurrence had been mentioned as 11:30 a.m. while the time of report had been shown as 03:45 p.m. on the same day---First Information Report had then been registered on the basis of Murasila at 06:20 p.m.---Distance of the place of occurrence from police station had been shown as 12/13 kilometres---First report of the occurrence had been lodged with delay of four hours and fifteen minutes---Such a delay had been tried to be explained by the complainant in the Murasila by stating that spot of occurrence had been a far of place from the police station as well as less acquaintance with the legal know-how---None of the given explanations appeared to be correct---Record showed that the police had arrived on the spot at 01:30 p.m., then why the complainant had failed in lodging report of the occurrence---Delay would naturally be fatal to the case of prosecution, in circumstances, as it was not only delay simplicitor but preliminary investigations had also been taken before lodging of first report of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. 1995 SCMR 1345; 2012 SCMR 428; PLD 2019 SC 64; 2003 YLR 927; 2013 YLR 543; 2019 YLR 1073; 2019 YLR 2082; 2020 PCr.LJ 202; 2001 SCMR 177; 2002 SCMR 334; 2003 SCMR 522; 2004 SCMR 1185; 2006 SCMR 161; PLD 2007 SC 71; 2007 SCMR 1014; 2017 SCMR 1976 and 2010 YLR 1125 ref. Ifiikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 341, 427 34---Qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention---Appreciation of…
🔒
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