| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2281 2012 SLD 2281 2012 PCRLJ 1467 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2010, decided on 22nd December, 2011
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JJ
Barrister M. Zahoorul Haq for Appellant. Barrister Waqar Ali, D.A.G. for the State. Sahibzada Asadullah Khan for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 2010, decided on 22nd December, 2011
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JJ
Barrister M. Zahoorul Haq for Appellant. Barrister Waqar Ali, D.A.G. for the State. Sahibzada Asadullah Khan for the Complainant
KASHIF
VS
THE STATE and another
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-D & 337-F(v)/34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to qatl-e-amd, Jaifah, causing Hashimah and common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, reduction in--- Mitigating circumstance---Initial report was made by the complainant who himself was badly injured in the occurrence and later on died---Said statement which had assumed the status of dying declaration, was made in presence of Doctor whose presence was established---Cause of death of deceased having been established, which was firearms injuries received by him, non-conducting of his postmortem had lost its value and that alone could not be termed as factum of doubt---Defence had failed to shatter the stance of deceased complainant---Said report could not be discarded---Version of the complainant got full support from the ocular account of occurrence given by prosecution witness---Prosecution witness being brother of deceased, alone would not be sufficient to discard his statement, when otherwise his statement was worth-reliance---Abandonment of one witness being unnecessary was not fatal to prosecution case, when statement of other eye-witnesses, coupled with dying declaration of the complainant along with other corroborative evidence had fully supported the case of prosecution---Even otherwise, it was the quality of evidence and not the quantity---Even a single confidence inspiring statement of witness was sufficient for conviction of accused---Medical account of the case also supported the case of prosecution as same was in consonance with ocular account---When the parties were residents of the same area and known to each other, they could easily be recognized, even in the dark---Contention that being a night occurrence without disclosing source of light would create serious doubts on the identification of accused, was repelled--- Delay of 2.45 hours in making the report was fully justified---Prosecution having proved its case against accused without any shadow of doubt, accused was rightly convicted by the Trial Court---Occurrence had taken place at night and because of darkness, it was not possible to determine that whose shot proved fatal, said…
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