| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2149 2020 SLD 2149 2020 YLR 1685 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 52-P of 2017, decision & hearingDated: 19-11-2019
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NASIR MEHFOOZ, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saeed Khan and Shabbir Hussain Gigyani for Appellants.Mujahid Ali Khan, A.A.G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 52-P of 2017, decision & hearingDated: 19-11-2019
ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NASIR MEHFOOZ, JUSTICE
Muhammad Saeed Khan and Shabbir Hussain Gigyani for Appellants.Mujahid Ali Khan, A.A.G. for the State.
BAKHT NAWAS AND ANOTHERSVSTHE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302,324,109,34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Related and interested witnesses---Chance witness---Non-availability of justification for presence for chance witness at the place of occurrence---Effect---Accused persons were charged for committing murder of son of the complainant by firing---Alleged motive was a dispute over landed property---Complainant and his brother had been shown in FIR to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Both were closely related to the deceased---Complainant, in cross-examination, deposed that accused had direct enmity with him and eye-witness---Both the alleged eye-witnesses living in different areas, having direct enmity/motive with the appellants were interested, inimical as well as chance witnesses---Complainant while appearing as witness reiterated the same story as set forth by him in the initial report/murasila---In cross-examination, complainant deposed that he was serving in police department for the last 20/25 years and had admitted that during the days of occurrence, he was posted in a police station---No evidence either oral or documentary in the shape of attendance register/record of police station had been brought on relevant by complainant to substantiate that on the relevant day he was on leave from duty---Complainant had not furnished any explanation, much less plausible, as to how he along with deceased and eye-witness got to gather or accompanied each other on the day of occurrence to the spot, particularly, when eye-witness was residing in separate house---Complainant and eye-witness had not sustained any injury despite the fact that accused were having direct enmity with them---Medical Officer had opined about the time between injury and death of the deceased as 45 minutes, had the complainant been present at the spot he would have shifted his deceased son then injured to hospital so as to save his life within 45 minutes and would have informed the police stations falling in the way from spot to hospital---In case complainant was present at the spot, his clothes and hands would…
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