| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1976 SLG 126 1976 SLD 126 1976 PLD 234 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C.J., SALAHUDDIN AHMED AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
TAJ MUHAMMAD
VS
MUHAMMAD YUSUF AND 2 OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- S. 302/34-[Murder case]-Appeal against acquittal-Appreciation of evidence-Murder committed in open place, in broad daylight, and thus not likely to go unnoticed-Eyewitnesses of occurrence natural, independent, and thoroughly disinterested-Evidence of such witnesses not only unchallenged but amply corroborated by recovery of bloodstained clothes and blood-stained crime, spears, former from, persons of accused and latter at their instance-Motive of offence also proved and unchallenged-Appellate Court not giving due weight to opinion of trial Court and neither carefully examining nature of injuries on. person of deceased nor scrutinising doctor's evidence in light of trial Court's observations, committing serious defect in process of discarding dying statement, failing to appraise eye-witnesses' evidence in light of probabilities and omitting to give due consideration to absence of any reason on witnesses' part to falsely implicate accused-respondents, disbelieving evidence of recovery witnesses without, assigning any reason, improperly relying upon previous statement as substantive evidence, and placing reliance on inadmissible piece of evidence-Appellate Court, held, committed serious breach of principles of appreciation of evidence, suffered from misconception of facts and law and caused failure of justice-Prosecution, held, succeeded in proving its case-Appeal allowed and order of acquittal set aside.-[Evidence, appreciation of-Appeal against acquittal]. Noora's case P L D 1973 S C 469 ref. (b) Criminal trial- -Witness-Eye-witness not expected to give details of each and every injury particularly when number of injuries very large-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34.-[Witness]. (c) Criminal trial- -Site plan-Not a substantive piece of evidence-Could not be use& to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of prosecution eye-witnesses.-[Evidence-Witness]. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872)- - S. 155(3)-Previous statement-Previous statement of witness B that statement of witness T had been recorded by Police not at Police Station but at another place-Could only be relied upon for purpose of contradicting witness B-Such…
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