| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3130 = 1980 SLD 3130 = 1980 PLD 317 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1975, decided on 27th August, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1041974 in Cr. Appeal No. 661/71).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Abdul Karim, AdvocateonRecord (presence dispensed with) for Appellant. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant AdvocateGeneral (Punjab) for
Respondent No. 1. Kaukab Iqbal, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocateon Record for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 1975, decided on 27th August, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1041974 in Cr. Appeal No. 661/71).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J., Muhammad Haleem and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Abdul Karim, AdvocateonRecord (presence dispensed with) for Appellant. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant AdvocateGeneral (Punjab) for
Respondent No. 1. Kaukab Iqbal, Advocate instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocateon Record for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
ALI SHERAppellant
VERSUS
THE STATE AND 3 OTHERsRespondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 185(a)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302/34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 382 B
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185 (3)Appeal against acquittal, nonprosecution ofPractice and procedureAdvocate appearing for appellant at leave stage dying, AdvocateonRecord, despite notice being sent; not appearing to prosecute appeal, appellant also absent at hearing of appealSupreme Court, nevertheless, in accordance with practice and procedure outlined in P L D 1977 S C 4 deciding to proceed with hearing of appealon merits.[Appeal against acquittalPractice and procedure]. Farid v. Aslam and 4 others P L D 1977 S C 4 ref. (t:) Criminal trial Prosecution, duty ofContention that defence version even if found to be unconvincing cannot lead to conviction of accused and case against accused, still required to be proved by prosecution, held, correct.[Burden of proof]. Muhammad Fazlul Karim v. The State and another P L D 1964 S C 792 ; Sadiq v. The State P L D 1967 S C 356 ; Wali Muhammad v. The State 1969 S C M R 612 and Muhammad Ismail v. Khushi Muhammad etc. P L D 1974 S C 37 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302/34 [Murdercase]Appeal against acquittalMurder taking place in broad daylight in front of house of a prosecution witnessEyewitnesses natural witnesses of occurrence but being related to deceased and there being a background of enmity between parties, trial Judge right in looking for corroborationTrial Judge rightly finding corroboration in presence of injuries on persons of respondents (accused) besides acquitted accusedMedical evidence also corroborating nature of weapons of offence , heavy sharp edged weapons Corroborations of statements of witnesses also available in recovery of bloodstained hatchets at instance of respondents accusedOne prosecution witness making concessions in favour of accused and partly belying prosecution version but fully supporting prosecution version in examinationinchiefEvidence of such witness even if rejected on account of having made false statements in crossexamination, evidence of Investigating Officer still left to support prosecution version relating to recoveries of crime weaponRecoveries genuinely made, hatchets recovered at instance of accused and stained with human blood at time of recovery, weapons…