| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1979 SLG 515 1979 SLD 515 1979 SCMR 186 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 3 P of 1977, decision dated: 8th November 1978.On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 11 11 1975 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1973 with Murder Referred No. 8 of 1975
DORAB PATEL, MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND G. SAFDAR SHAH, JJ
S. M. Zafar, Senior Advocate, M. Bilal, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate General (Punjab), Ch. Akhtar Ali; Advocate on-Record, Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate and Nur Ahmad, Advocate on-Record f
Criminal Appeal No. 3 P of 1977, decision dated: 8th November 1978.On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 11 11 1975 in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1973 with Murder Referred No. 8 of 1975
DORAB PATEL, MUHAMMAD HALEEM AND G. SAFDAR SHAH, JJ
S. M. Zafar, Senior Advocate, M. Bilal, Advocate and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate on-Record for Appellant. Sh. Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate General (Punjab), Ch. Akhtar Ali; Advocate on-Record, Fida Muhammad Khan, Advocate and Nur Ahmad, Advocate on-Record f
UMAR JEHAN
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial -- Child witness Judges to record their questions to child witness and his or her answers while giving their opinion about competence of such witness Examination of child witness by committal Magistrate rather perfunctory, hence, his opinion regarding incompetence of witness not impressing Sessions Judge though not recording questions and answers forming basis of his opinion regarding competence of witness yet witness having been subjected to a rather lengthy cross-examination and having stood very well, contention of witness being incompetent, held, not impressing. [Witness]. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) -- ----S. 302 (Murder case) Child witness Corroboration Father of child witness being inimical to accused appellant possible danger of wit¬ness being tutored by her father Statements of witness about manner of occurrence before her meeting with her father in such eventuality very relevant Prosecution witness S rushing to scene of occurrence and informed by child witness of her mother having been fired at with a sten gun and killed by accused Prosecution witness A. S. I. preparing site plan at instance of child witness Neither of such two witnesses cross examined on their statements Father of child witness having not been alleged to have reached place of occurrence before arrival of such two prosecution witnesses, evidence of such witnesses, held, furnished strong corroboration of evidence of child witness in Sessions Court. [Witness Evidence]. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302 (Murder case) Motive Adverse inference Prosecution witness categorically stating appellant having land dispute with his brother but witness not cross examined on point Not necessary in circumstances for prosecution to have examined child witness's father to prove motive and no adverse inference could be drawn against prosecution on that account. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) -- ----S. 302 (Murder case) Appreciation of evidence Adverse in¬ference Explanation of prosecution for not examining grandmother of child witness and mother of appellant allegedly present in house at time of murder: such women won over Explanation, in circum¬stances of case, being open to…
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