| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3199 = 1981 SLD 3199 = 1981 PLD 472 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 324 of 1979, decided on 11th November, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 6-6-1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1978 and Murder Reference No. 88 of 1978).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem, Aslam Riaz Hussain and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
Shaukat All, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 324 of 1979, decided on 11th November, 1980. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 6-6-1979 in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1978 and Murder Reference No. 88 of 1978).
Presented By: Muhammad Haleem, Aslam Riaz Hussain and Abdul Kadir Shaikh, JJ
Shaukat All, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, AdvocateonRecord for Petitioner. Nemo for the State.
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE AHMAD-Petitioner
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 16
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302 [Murdercase] Appreciation of evidenceAccused petitioner developing illicit relations with deceased's daughter during deceased's absence abroadDeceased on coming home finding accused in his house, objecting to his presence, and on altercation taking place leaving house but on following midnight coming armed with a dagger, attacking deceased, and killing himProsecution witnesses identifying culprit by electric light trying to catch him but accused making good his escapeAccused arrested next morning, his bushshirt and shalwar noticed to be stained with blood and Police Officer securing such articlesAccused volunteering to produce weapon of offence, leading Police to his house, and producing bloodstained daggerIncrimi nating articles proved by Chemical Examiner to be stained with human bloodProsecution case, held, rightly believed by lower Courts, conclu sions reached by them based on proper appreciation of evidence, and criticism levelled against prosecution evidence rightly rejected . [Evidence]. Link 1 Link 2 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 16;ConfessionWitness, credibility ofProsecution witness given up by prosecution as having been won over and Public Prosecutor making him available at trial for crossexamination but accused's counsel declining to do soContention that statement of such witness made under S. 164, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 could be considered as evidence, held, totally irrelevant in circumstancesEven otherwise, held further, person going on making contradictory statements from time to time one in favour of one party at one stage and another quite to contrary and in favour of oppositeparty, could hardly, be worthy of credence, to be looked upon by Courts with disfavour and his evidence to be ruled out of consideration if not prosecuted for giving false evidence.[ConfessionWitness]. Link Date of hearing : 11th November, 1980. …