Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 2208 2023 SLD 2208 2023 YLR 2237
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Criminal Appeal No. 288-M and Criminal Revision No. 97-M of 2018, decided on 17th December, 2020.Date of hearing: 17th December. 2020.
Before Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Wiqar Ahmad, JJ
Zia-ur-Rehman Tajik for Petitioner (in Criminal Appeal No. 288-M of 2018). Haq Nawaz, Asstt. A.G. for
Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No.288-M of 2018). Sabir Shah and Rahim Zada for
Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No.288-M of 2018) Sabir Shah and Rahim Z

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE through A.A.G. and another---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements---Identification parade not conducted ---Accused, along with others, allegedly injured the complainant and murdered the latter's uncle---Two accused, who were attributed the main role in the offence, remained absconders---Regarding the accused person's role, he was the father of the other two accused, aged 56/57 years---He was alleged to have participated in the incident as part of a common intention---Complainant's presence at the scene was not in doubt, but the veracity of his statement regarding the accused person's role could be questioned---During cross-examination, the witness changed his earlier stance, stating that the absconding co-accused entered the barber shop first, followed by the accused after five minutes---Accused was unknown to the barber before the incident---Since the barber belonged to a different village and did not know the accused by name, the prosecution should have conducted an identification parade to properly identify the accused---However, no such parade was conducted---Therefore, the testimony of barber could not be considered against the accused---Prosecution's eye-witness account lacked sufficient evidence to establish the accused person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt---Moreover, considering the presented motive, it was difficult to believe that a person of the accused's age would accompany his two much younger sons to commit such a crime without a strong motive---Prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd and common intention---Recovery of weapon and vehicle---Reliance---Accused, along with others, allegedly injured the complainant and murdered the latter's uncle---However, the indication of the place of recovery of the motorcar made by the accused and its use for the escape of the other accused from…
🔒
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