| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3059 = 1980 SLD 3059 = 1980 SCMR 208 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 15-P of 1971, decided on 20th May, 1979. On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated 4-9-1969 in Cr. Appeal No. 178/68).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Aman Khan, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Nazirullah Khan, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1. M. Sardar Khan, Advocate-General, (N.-W. F. P.) for
Respondent No. 2.
Criminal Appeal No. 15-P of 1971, decided on 20th May, 1979. On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated 4-9-1969 in Cr. Appeal No. 178/68).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Aman Khan, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Nazirullah Khan, Advocate and Noor Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 1. M. Sardar Khan, Advocate-General, (N.-W. F. P.) for
Respondent No. 2.
LIAQAT ALI-Appellant
VERSUS
MASAL KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 8, 27
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Medical jurisprudence Shot fired by assailant hitting deceased on forehead between two eye brows and injuries caused by his falling on ground being on chin and lips-Person firing at deceased, held, must have been standing in front of him-Respondent accused, according to all prosecution witnesses, fired after witnesses and deceased had walked past respon dent, respondent could not have in circumstances fired from his front side-Deceased if on hearing first shot glanced backwards, as alleged, he could not have been hit between two eye-brows and shot would have bit him at an angle-Not possible in circumstances to believe deceased having stopped walking on hearing first shot, and turned round to face his enemy and became a sitting duck for his enemy to fire at-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.-[Criminal trial]. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-[Murder-case]-Appreciation of evidence-Witness stating all three eye-witnesses having witnessed occurrence but Sessions Court finding none of such three witnesses having witnessed occurrence- Finding of Sessions Court, held, in circumstances, reacts against witness's veracity.-[Evidence]. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-[Murder-case]-Concurrent findings of fact-Sessions Judge rejecting explanation given by four eye-witnesses as to why they happened to be together at time of occurrence-Sessions Judge after examining discrepancies in statements of witnesses about manner of chase given to respondent finding it highly improbable for witnesses to have chased armed assailant while they themselves were unarmed Concurrent findings on questions of fact recorded by Courts below, held, cannot be interfered with in appeal to Supreme Court. [Evidence-Finding of fact]. (d) Evidence Act (I of 1872) S. 8, illus. (i)-Abscondence-A weak form of corroboratory evidence-Period of abscondence' being only for about three months, such abscondence, held, cannot furnish corroboration of evidence of a single prosecution witness.--[Abscondence]. (e) Evidence Act (I of 1872) S. 27-Recovery of incriminating articles-Crime pistol though produced by accused's brother yet prosecution not leading evidence to show how accused obtained…