| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3058 = 1980 SLD 3058 = 1980 PCRLJ 286 |
Punjab High Court
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1979, decided on 21st October, 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Khurshid Khan and Karimullah Khan Durrani, JJ
Abdus Samad Khan for Appellant. S. Ibne Ali, Addl. A.G. for the State.
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1979, decided on 21st October, 1979.
Presented By: Muhammad Khurshid Khan and Karimullah Khan Durrani, JJ
Abdus Samad Khan for Appellant. S. Ibne Ali, Addl. A.G. for the State.
AMIR-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302 [Murdercase]Benefit of doubtEyewitnesses telling lie and trying to suppress material fact with regard to time of occur renceOccurrence a dark night affair, identity of accused not proved and no crime weapon recovered from place of occurrenceMere presence of motive and disappearance of accused for a pretty tong time, held, not by themselves sufficient to hold accused guilty of murderAccused given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circum stances.[Benefit of doubt]. (b) Criminal trial Witness, disinterestedEvidenceWant of interest in prosecution does not by itself stamp evidence of a witness with truthJudge holding trialTo scrutinize prosecution evidence on merits in each case.__[Evidence]. (c) Criminal trial Witness, testimony ofWeight attached to testimony of a witness depends upon various consideration : (i) testimony on face of it be in consonance with probability and consistent with other evidence ; and (ii) generally so fit in with material details of case for prosecution as to carry conviction of truth to a prudent mindSuch elements wanting in testimony of a witness, howsoever independent he may appear to be, his evidence, held, cannot be relied on in decision of criminal cases.[EvidenceWitness]. Date of hearing : 21st October, 1979. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD KHURSHID KHAN, J.The appellant, 'Amir Khan, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Swat, on 12th of December, 1978, under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, and was sentenced to death and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation to Mst. Taj Mahala, widow of the deceased under section 544 (a). Criminal Procedure Code or in default to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. The present appeal is directed against this conviction and sentence. The matter is also before us for…