| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1997 SLG 1244 1997 SLD 1244 = 1997 PLD 88 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1996, decided on 3rd March, 1997
Presented By: Before Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur and Tariq Pervez Khan, JJ
Assad Ali Khan for Appellant.
Criminal Appeal No. 160 of 1996, decided on 3rd March, 1997
Presented By: Before Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur and Tariq Pervez Khan, JJ
Assad Ali Khan for Appellant.
NAZAR MUHAMMAD ---Appellant
VERSUS
MUJAHID and 4 others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 324 , 34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 417---Appeal against acquittal---Presumption of innocence---Accused in an appeal against acquittal is equipped with double presumption of innocence. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 324/34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Appeal against acquittal---Empties recovered from the spot were not sent to Fire-arm Expert to find out if the same had been fired from one fire-arm or more, particularly when the complainant according to his medico-legal report had sustained three fire-arm entry wounds for which four persons were charged---Ocular evidence was discrepant, contradictory and exaggerated---No legal infirmity, perversity or unreasonableness having been pointed out in the Trial Court's judgment, appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed in limine. Assad Ali Khan for Appellant. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1997. JUDGMENT TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, J.--This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 14-5-1996 of the learned Judge Special Court, Charsadda whereby he acquitted the respondents, namely, Mujahid Misal Khan, Ikramullah and Tariq. The brief facts given in the F.I.R. by the complainant who is appellant before us, are that on 11-2-1995 at 11-00 hours while he was present in Government Primary School, Kuladhand Bala (being posted as teacher) alongwith other staff members, the accused-respondents entered the school and started firing at him, as a result he got hit on his arm and leg. Motive advanced was dispute over land. At the trial the prosecution's star witness namely Nazar Muhammad, the complainant-appellant appeared as P. W.1 reiterating the story of F. I. R. but deviated in giving fatal role to respondent Misal Khan. He also set up a different story by introducing the firing being made at him in two separate volleys, the first while in veranda of the school and the second in the courtyard. To support the story of the complainant, Talibul Islam, his real brother appeared as P.W.2 and gave totally different version in respect of material facts i.e., he categorically stated that in the first volley of shots his brother, the complainant, was not hit and in fact he was hit…