| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 386 1983 SLD 386 1983 PLD 117 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1980, decision dated: 4-10-1982.
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J., ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Nemo Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Raja M. Akram, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record No. 9.
Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1980, decision dated: 4-10-1982.
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J., ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Nemo Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Raja M. Akram, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record No. 9.
MEHRBAN
VS
ABDUL HAMID alias MAJID (HAMIDULLAH) AND others
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV -of 1860)-S. 148/302/307/149--Rioting--Murder-Appeal against acquittal Appreciation of evidence--Case against accused respondents primarily resting upon ocular testimony furnished by prosecution witnesses M, J and I first two having received injuries in transaction-Deceased's father having arrived at scene of occurrence after receipt of fatal injuries by deceased hence such person could not be an eye-witness-No empties recovered and rifle secured a licensed one, hence no circumstantial evidence available against respondents-Inherent infirmities existing in account of occurrence given by. prosecution eye-witnesses and certain aspects of their account not appealing to reason and apparently inconsistent with common course of human conduct-Circumstances raising doubt as. to presence of prosecution witness M at spot and his version not convincing-Eye-witnesses speak of only one shot having been fired at deceased R but he received two injuries-Pellet recovered from deceased indicating a shot-gun having been fired at deceased whereas prosecution story throughout being three respondents being armed with rifles and rest with hatchets-No evidence as to any of accused having been armed with a weapon combining in itself a shotgun and a rifle-No motive shown against respondents for killing deceased R-.Father of R proved to have been a witness against deceased B in a pending murder case-Respondents also appearing to have approached police station with a counter version and produced gun involved in case-Held: Nothing in High Court's refusal to rely on ground of their being closely related to deceased B and M as well as inter se and there being serious animosity between parties-Testimony of partisan witnesses especially in background of enmity-Cannot as a rule of prudence be relied upon without independent corroboration-Independent corroboration not existing, circumstances reflecting upon honesty of investigation, true facts having been withheld from Court, order of acquittal passed by High Court not open to exception.-[Appeal against acquittal-Evidence]. JUDGMENT ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-Leave was granted in this case to consider if the order of acquittal ofโฆ
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