| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 369 1994 SLD 369 1994 PLD 259 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.168, Criminal Petitions Nos.80 and 236-L of 1992,
SAAD SAOOD, JAN, AJMAL MIAN AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ
Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanwir Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in CrA. No. 168 of 1992) and Petitioners (in Cr.P. No. 80 of 1992). Raja Abdul Ghafoor,. Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Cr.A.No. 168
Criminal Appeal No.168, Criminal Petitions Nos.80 and 236-L of 1992,
SAAD SAOOD, JAN, AJMAL MIAN AND SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, JJ
Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanwir Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant (in CrA. No. 168 of 1992) and Petitioners (in Cr.P. No. 80 of 1992). Raja Abdul Ghafoor,. Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in Cr.A.No. 168
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE KHAN and others
VS
THE STATE and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---All Pakistan Legal Decisions Vol. XLVI----Ss. 302/34 & 324/34---Appraisal of evidence---Accused had failed to establish his right of self-defence---Eye-witness account was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence of recovery of gun which matched with the empties recovered from the spot---Convictions of accused were upheld in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/34 & 324/34---Appraisal of evidence---No recovery of weapon was effected from the accused although he was stated to be armed with a revolver at the time of incident---Prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the injuries sustained by the deceased-and the injured prosecution witness could be caused by a different kind of fire-arm as attributed to the accused---No bullet was recovered from the spot to establish the use of such fire-arm---Ocular evidence was inimical and lacked corroboration---Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 302/34 & 324/34---Sentence---Weak or false defence plea---Falseness of the defence plea in a criminal case can neither relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts nor it can lend support or strength to the prosecuting case against the accused, much less to justify on enhanced punishment to him---Punishment to be awarded to an accused person in a criminal case entirely depends, on the strength and circumstances established against him by the prosecution in the case---Weakness or falseness of the defence plea is not to be taken into consideration while awarding punishment to the accused in a criminal trial.-[Criminal trial]. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302/34---Sentence, reduction in---Motive as alleged by-the prosecution had not been established at the trial---What actually happened just before the incident remained shrouded in. mystery and the parties had not taken the Court into confidence to reveal the full facts---Death sentence awarded to accused by High Court was altered to imprisonment for life in circumstances. JUDGMENT SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J: --This judgment will…
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