| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 899 2012 SLD 899 2012 YLR 533 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. (S)62 of 2007, decision Dated: 22-09-2011. Hearing Dated: 11-08-2011.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Kamran Murtaza for Appellant.
Respondent(s) by: Abdullah Kurd, Addl: P.G.?
Criminal Appeal No. (S)62 of 2007, decision Dated: 22-09-2011. Hearing Dated: 11-08-2011.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Kamran Murtaza for Appellant.
Respondent(s) by: Abdullah Kurd, Addl: P.G.?
ABDUL REHMAN
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302,302(b)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161,340(2),342,382B
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129(g)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt as not a single bit of tangible evidence could be found in support of the charge against accused, connecting him with the commission of offence---Both the witnesses were closely related to each other and were inimical to accused---Alleged eye-witnesses who had contradicted each other on material aspects of the case, had failed to inspire confidence---Evidence of one prosecution witness was of no avail to the prosecution being hearsay evidence; as he had not seen the occurrence and was informed about the incident by other two prosecution witnesses and that too after considerable delay of about six days of the occurrence without any plausible explanation---Accused was husband of deceased, but her dead body was not found in his house---F.I.R. though was promptly registered in which accused was nominated, but there was double version of the prosecution story, which had created serious doubt in the case of prosecution---Presence of alleged eye-witnesses in the house of the complainant was also doubtful---One prosecution witness who had resiled from his statement and was declared hostile, though thoroughly cross-examined, had not stated a single word against accused and had exonerated him from the commission of the offence---Medical evidence in the case was not of much help to the prosecution case as the same could not identify or locate the perpetrators of the offence, when presence of alleged eye-witness itself was found to be doubtful---Prosecution had failed to prove the alleged motive---Impugned of conviction being not sustainable was directed to be set aside---Accused was acquitted of the charge and was set at liberty, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Conviction could be based on the evidence of a solitary witness, but subject to the condition that witness should be found to be truthful and confidence inspiring. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Medical…
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