| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 290 1979 SLD 290 1979 PLD 276 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 261 and 263 of 1976, decided on 27th August 1978. Dates of hearing: 8th, 9th, 13th and 15th August 1978.
ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI AND G. M. SHAH, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Appellants. Abdul Karim Lakhan for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 261 and 263 of 1976, decided on 27th August 1978. Dates of hearing: 8th, 9th, 13th and 15th August 1978.
ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI AND G. M. SHAH, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Appellants. Abdul Karim Lakhan for the State.
MANZOOR alias MUJAN AND ANOTHER --Appellants
VS
THE STATE --Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial Reconstruction of case Court can reconstruct prosecution case---¬Witnesses on account of failing memory or by reason of lapse of time may give a slightly altered version in Court Duty of Court, in such cases, to draw its conclusions by its own inference when same proceed upon evidence and established circumstances of case. [Duty of Court Presumption]. Syed Ali Bepar v. Nibaran Mollah P L D 1962 S C 502 ref. Bhalu v. Crown P:L D 1955 F C 432 and Muhammad Akhtar v. The State P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 297 distinguished. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302 read with S. 100 Murder Piivate defence, right of¬---Accused, after verbal altercation and being chased by complainant party bringing gun from his home and firing at unarmed deceased¬---Neither any injuries on person of accused found nor any apprehen¬sion from complainant or deceased Held, right of Private defence not available to accused, in circumstances of case. [Private defence, right of]. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 510 [as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) read with Evidence Act (I 'of 1872), Ss. 45 & 46 Opinion of experts Ballistic Expert Effect of amendment of , S. 510, Cr. P. C. Report of Ballistic Expert Not binding on Court and can never be considered to be infallible but requires scrutiny by Courts Difference between a fact and an opinion Opinion of expert not supported by reasons¬--Held, does not carry any weight. There is no doubt that the amendment in section 510, Cr. P. C. is a provision of convenience but this amendment does not relieve the prosecution of its duty to support the opinion of the ballistic expert by reasons for such opinion and if circumstances so require production of the expert for cross-¬examination. All that the amendment provides is for reception of the report but in regard to the rules governing the credibility or value of the opinion section 510, Cr. P. C. as amended does not make any departure from the existing state of law. The report of the ballistic expert is after all an opinion which is never binding on the Court and can never be considered to be infallible. Howsoever high the status of the expert, his evidence is after all…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492