| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 1003 1995 SLD 1003 1995 PLD 20 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 76-Q of 1994, decided on 28th February, 1995. dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd February, 1995.
FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No. 76-Q of 1994, decided on 28th February, 1995. dates of hearing: 21st and 22nd February, 1995.
FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, NASIR ASLAM ZAHID AND KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
AHMED SHER and another
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 40---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Place of occurrence---Discovery---Place of occurrence known to everyone and site plan having been prepared prior to the pointation of the same by the accused, such pointation could not be treated as a discovery to bring it within the four corners of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. (b) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)-- ----S. 17(4)---Appreciation of evidence---Confession made by accused was not only exculpatory in nature but on account of other infirmities and contradictions and non-compliance of necessary requirements, could not be relied upon as admissible and could not be used as a piece of evidence against his co-accused---Identification of accused on the basis of voice by prosecution witnesses who had not seen their faces was by itself a weak piece of evidence and coupled with the infirmities in holding the identification tests, could not form the basis for conviction---Accused were acquitted in circumstances.-[Confession]. Shabiul Hassan v. State PLD 1991 SC 898; Hamzo v. State 1972 PCr.LJ 478; Abdul Rashid v. State 1973 PCr.LJ 428 and Misri v. State 1984 PCr.LJ 2832 ref. (c) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)-- ----S. 17(4)---Confession of co-accused---Confession of co-accused cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence to make it the basis of conviction of other accused, but can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence if other substantive evidence is available on record.--[Confession]. Shabiul Hassan v. State PLD 1991 SC 898 ref. (d) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)-- ----S. 17(4)---Identification by voice---Identification of an accused by voice through an identification test is a weak piece of evidence and should be supported by other evidence.--[Identification]. Hamzo v. State 1972 PCr.LJ 478; Abdul Rashid v. State 1973 PCr.LJ 428 and Misri v. State 1984 PCr.LJ 2832 ref. JUDGMENT NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.---This appeal has been filed by convicts Ahmed Sher son of Sakhi Awan and Zakaullah son…
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