| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 472 1963 SLD 472 1963 PLD 109 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1962, decided on 18th January 1963.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Dr. Naseem Hassan Shah Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khalilur Rahman Attorney for Appellant. Hafizur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Rehman Attorney for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by I
Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1962, decided on 18th January 1963.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE-AKBAR, B. Z. KAIKAUS AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Dr. Naseem Hassan Shah Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khalilur Rahman Attorney for Appellant. Hafizur Rahman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Rehman Attorney for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by I
Mst. HAMIDA BANO---Appellant
VS
(1) ASHIQ HUSSAIN AND (2) STATE AND 4 others--Respondents
Law:
Section:
(a) Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court- (Criminal) (Appeal from acquittal)-Granted-(Appeal supported by State) (b) Supreme Court- (Appeal against acquittal)"All circumstances of case as well as evidence" examined. (c) Criminal trial-Large number (53) of accused-Offences committed ascribed to much smaller number of accused-Such "widening of scope of accusation" ordinarily creates doubt in mind of Court. (d) Criminal trial - Recovery - Accused himself producing weapon of offence before Police-Such production may be taken as supporting circumstantial evidence against accused. (e) Arrest- (How made)-Merely shouting by Police Officer "I arrest you all" (a crowd of 53) without "touching" anyone's person-Not enough to establish that crowd had been arrested. (f) Private defence, right of- (Against unlawful arrest)-Accused must show that he was in "immediate apprehension of actual arrest in form required by law", i.e., by restraint upon accused's person. (g) Witness- (Murder case)-Interested witness-Relationship or family ties-Evidence to be examined with care-Corroboration front independent sources-Sub-Inspector Police belonging to urban class killed in village of his own police station in course of discharge of duty-Whether prosecution witnesses found from locality could be described as "interested". (h) Witness-(Murder case)-Interested witness-Allegation of witness's interest against 2 of several accused-Witness not necessarily "interested" in regard to other accused. (i) Criminal trial-Evidence-Injuries (not mentioned in statements to police) ascribed to particular accused-Details furnished by eye-witnesses at a "somewhat late stage"-Not by itself sufficient to throw cloud of disbelief over whole evidence. (j) Identification parade- (Purpose)-Identification by witness "on recollection of features." (k) Precedents- (Use of, as guidance in other cases)-Everything said in precedent case is understood "with great particularity" as having been said with reference to facts of such case (more particularly in a criminal case)- [Rehmat v. The State P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 109 and Niaz v. The State P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 387 explained.] (l) Witness-Eye-witnesses-Found…
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