Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1167 2023 SLD 1167 2023 YLR 868
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench
Criminal Appeal No. 131-B with Murder Reference No. 02-B of2021, decided on 10th May, 2022. Date of hearing: 10thMay, 2022.
S. M. ATTIQUE SHAH AND SAHIBZADA ASADULLAH, JJ

IRFANULLAHvsThe STATE and 2 others

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

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

Section: 15

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(a) 353---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, possession of unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Matter was reported to the police with promptitude---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of on duty Police Official by firing---Matter was reported to the local police at 03.15 p.m. and it was agitated by the defence that when the report was made after the medical examination then an inference could be drawn that the matter was investigated and later on, after consultation and deliberation, the accused was charged for the death of the deceased---Record showed that both the witnesses i.e. the doctor and the scribe categorically admitted that at the same time, the treatment of the injured was in progress and the Police Official was busy in drafting the murasila---Scribe when appeared before the Trial Court, during his cross-examination, stated that after drafting the murasila and preparation of the injury sheet, the injured was referred to the doctor for his medical examination, but the same alone was not sufficient to discard the report of the deceased then injured, as the injured had no mala fide to falsely implicate the accused for the injuries caused to him---In criminal cases, first the report is made, then the injury sheet is prepared and thereafter, the injured is referred to the doctor for his examination, but said explanation of the scribe could only and only be considered a procedural lapse, which could not overweigh the confidence inspiring report of the complainant---Both the witnesses walked with bona fide had they any mala fide then they would have told the story in the manner that would suit the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused but the accused deserved to be convicted under S.302(c), P.P.C. instead of S.302(a), P.P.C.---Appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded under S.302(a), P.P.C. and convict the accused under S. 302(c), P.P.C. to fifteen years rigorous imprisonment---Appeal…
🔒
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