Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2335 2012 SLD 2335 2012 YLR 168
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2009, decided on 29th September, 2011. DATE of hearing: 6th September, 2011
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI AND NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JJ
Muhammad Aamir Rana for Appellant. Miss Sarwat Hina, Add. P.G. for the State

NOORULLAH

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Statement made by complainant, had been corroborated by prosecution witness, who was also present at the time of incident at the venue---Medical evidence also supported prosecution version---Defence conducted a lengthy cross-examination, but no improvement and contradiction was noticed in the statement of prosecution witness---No reasons existed, in circumstances, to disbelieve the ocular account furnished by the complainant and prosecution witness, corroborated by medical evidence and the recoveries---Recovery memo pertaining to blood-stained cotton and the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory had fully corroborated the statement of the complainant---No delay in lodging of the F.I.R.---Vehicle in question having not been identified by the witnesses, recovery of said vehicle was immaterial and would neither help the prosecution nor the defence---Prosecution evidence having remained firm, consistent and corroborative to each other on all the material points i.e. timing, manner of commission of offence, identification of accused being armed with specific weapons, the Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly rendered the findings, which were not open to any exception---Mere non-recovery of crime weapon, could not be treated a circumstance to vitiate the prosecution case---One of the witnesses, who could not be traced, was dropped---Prosecution produced two eye-witnesses and remained satisfied with the number of witnesses---Prosecution had the prerogative to produce whatever number of witnesses which it felt were necessary to prove the case---Testimony of two prosecution witnesses were treated as sufficient by the prosecution and the Trial Court having rightly believed the witnesses, non-production of said witness was not fatal---Trial Court having rightly rendered findings, appeal against of the Trial Court was dismissed. 1985 SCMR 181; 2003 SCMR 477 and 1993 PCr.LJ 1231 distinguished. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Subsequent hostility of witness---Hostility of a witness, would not affect the veracity of said witness recorded earlier, provided same was…
🔒
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