Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 2280 2023 SLD 2280 2023 YLR 1930
Peshawar High Court
J. Crl. Appeal No. 1147-P of 2021, decided on 3rd August, 2022.Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2022.
Before Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Shahid Khan, JJ
Astaghfirullah for Appellants. Niaz Muhammad, A.A.G. for the State. Shabir Hussain Gigyani for the Complainant.

NAIK AWAZ and anoher---Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,148,149

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the time and occurrence was doubtful---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant and two of his relatives were hit and one of them died---Presence of the complainant party at the scene of occurrence at the fateful time was alleged to be on account of routine gossip---Close perusal of the site plan would transpire that the members of the complainant party including the deceased had been shown at a considerable distance from each other, whereas, in case of informal conversation or gossip, members of the subject company were supposed to be close and well connected so that they could communicate their respective chat easily---However, the in between distance of the victims reflected in the site plan, prima facie was not so close to mutually communicate the gossip---Other than this shops and residence do figure in the site plan but instead of the same the complainant party opted to gossip on the main road highlighted in the site plan---Likewise, the Investigation Officer on his visit to the scene of occurrence did not highlight in his preliminarily investigation report/site plan either the seating arrangement of the members of the complainant party nor the seating articles---Strong presumption could not ruled out that the same had not been highlighted/disclosed to the Investigation Officer, therefore, it did not figure at all in the investigation---Such infirmity touched the roots of the prosecution's case---In such circumstances, it was hard to believe the very presence of the complainant at the fateful time as the reason of his presence did not appeal to a prudent mind coupled with the culture and tradition of the locality according to which gossiping in a thoroughfare was avoided---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.…
🔒
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