| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2546 2024 SLD 2546 2024 YLR 309 |
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench
Criminal Appeal No. 132-B of 2022, decided on 21st February, 2023. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2023.
Before Sahibzada Asadullah and Shahid Khan, JJ
Qaidullah Khan Khattak and Qaiser Rahim for Appellant. Saif-ur-Rahman Khattak, Addl: A.G. for the State. Muhammad Rashid Khan Dirmakhel for
Respondent No.2.
Criminal Appeal No. 132-B of 2022, decided on 21st February, 2023. Date of hearing: 21st February, 2023.
Before Sahibzada Asadullah and Shahid Khan, JJ
Qaidullah Khan Khattak and Qaiser Rahim for Appellant. Saif-ur-Rahman Khattak, Addl: A.G. for the State. Muhammad Rashid Khan Dirmakhel for
Respondent No.2.
AMIR MEHMOOD---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Each case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and they seldom coincide with each other on salient features. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father-in-law of complainant by firing---Ocular account consisted of the statements of the complainant and her son---According to the said witnesses of the ocular account, the accused duly equipped with firearm made firing at them, as a result of which, the deceased got hit and died on the spot---Admittedly, eye-witnesses were not the identifiers of the dead body of the deceased before the local police as well as before the doctor, rather it was identified by other witnesses, who were not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Similarly, eye-witnesses on their turn stated in their respective statements that after lodging the report in the police station they proceeded to their house, whereas, the deceased was taken to the hospital---Complainant stated that due to grief she had not counted the number of fire shots made by the accused upon them---Caliber of weapon was also not mentioned in the FIR---Son of complainant stated in his in cross-examination that the accused was armed with Kalashnikov and he was acquainted with the same---Said witness stated that the report was read over to him but he had not disclosed to the police that the accused was armed with Kalashnikov---Non disclosure of kind and bore of the weapon used in the commission of the offence despite the fact that eye-witness could identify the arms with its bores was a strong circumstance which made presence of one of the eye-witnesses at the fateful time on the scene of occurrence highly doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Related witnesses---Scope---No doubt, the evidence of closely related witnesses cannot be discarded on the mere ground of their relation with the victim but if, it is found that testimony of the related witnesses does not find corroboration from attending circumstances…
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