| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2233 2023 SLD 2233 2023 YLR 2462 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 846-P of 2018, decided on 5th July,2022.Date of hearing: 5th July, 2022.
Before Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ
Syed Abdul Fayaz for Appellant. Muhammad Nisar Khan, A.A.G., for the State. Mian Sher Akbar for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 846-P of 2018, decided on 5th July,2022.Date of hearing: 5th July, 2022.
Before Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ
Syed Abdul Fayaz for Appellant. Muhammad Nisar Khan, A.A.G., for the State. Mian Sher Akbar for the Complainant.
MUNEEB HASSAN---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be previous blood feud enmity between the parties---Record showed that it was the case of prosecution that on the eventful day at 04:05 p.m. complainant party was present in front of the Hujra of the deceased and were busy in gossiping, in the meantime, accused along with the acquitted co-accused and the absconding co-accused came there duly armed with firearms and started indiscriminate firing at the deceased, as result whereof the deceased got hit and sustained injuries---Site plan of the Hujra of the deceased showed that the same comprised of rooms, veranda and courtyard as well---Thus, there was no occasion for the deceased and the witnesses to be present in the thoroughfare for the purpose of chatting when the gate of the Hujra was quite close to the point where the deceased had been shown to be present at the time of occurrence---Even otherwise when deceased and witnesses were locked in intense enmity their presence in the thoroughfare did not appeal to a prudent mind---In the site plan the deceased had been shown on one side of the road while the complainant and witnesses had been shown at the other side---If they were present for the purpose of gossiping then they should have been close to each other instead of standing at a considerable distance from each other---Another feature of the case was ages of the witnesses and the deceased---Deceased was aged about 75/76 years and the complainant was aged about 47/48 years while eye-witness was aged about 38 years---Deceased and witnesses were from different age groups and their assemblage at that point of time for the purpose of gossiping was also repellent to common sense keeping in view the difference between their ages---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code…
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