Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 997 2011 SLD 997 2011 YLR 991
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 82 and Criminal Revision 32 of 2009, decision & hearing Dated: 01-12-2010.
MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, JUSTICE ABDUL SAMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Saeed Akhtar Khan for Appellants. S. Yasir Shabbir for
Respondents.

KHAN AFSAR AND 2 OTHERS

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34/302

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/34---Qatl-e-amd, acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Testimonies of witnesses were inconsistent, full of improvements and infirmities on material points such as time and place of occurrence, presence of witnesses at the time of occurrence and the ocular account---Ocular account was not consistent with medical evidence---Prosecution version that the wife of the deceased did not follow him as he left the house on hearing the gunshots could not be believed---Prosecution withheld best available evidence by not producing the wife of the deceased as witness---Material facts were suppressed by prosecution and occurrence remained shrouded in mystery leading to the conclusion that the case was one of no evidence---Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Benefit of doubt was extended to the accused who were acquitted of the charge. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MIAN FASIH-UL-MULK, JUSTICE:---. Khan Afsar, Khanwaiz sons of Samundar and Zar Khan son of Khan Afsar were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Abbottabad on charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. and having 'found guilty each of them were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to suffer six months' R.I. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was however, extended.. The appellants have tiled Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2009 against, their conviction and sentence whereas Mir Afzal complainant has tiled Criminal Revision No.32 of 2009 for enhancement of sentence. Both the appeal and criminal revision are disposed off through this single judgment. 2. Facts of the prosecution case are that on 26-4-2007 at 2200 hours the complainant Mir Afzal reported the matter to the local police that he along with his wife Mst. Saleema Jan was present in his house. Muhammad Miskeen, brother-ill-law of complainant, returned from work and told that he heard the report of tiring at Dhaka Rakh and went towards Dhaka Rakh. Complainant and his wife went behindMuhammad Miskeen towards Dhama Rakh. At Dhaka Rakh…
🔒
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