| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 425 1994 SLD 425 1994 PLD 879 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No.45 of 1992, decision dated: 31st.J.uly,1994. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22-1-1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No.51/J/89).
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J., MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
Jail Petition No.45 of 1992, decision dated: 31st.J.uly,1994. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22-1-1992 passed in Criminal Appeal No.51/J/89).
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J., MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN AND MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, JJ
Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court. Nemo for the State.
ASHIQ HUSSAIN alias MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302---Both prosecution and accused had admitted the occurrence but had given different versions---Onus would be on the prosecution to prove its case through reliable evidence, direct or circumstantial and that too beyond reasonable doubt---Where the Court had discussed the defence plea/case/evidence first and after rejecting that, had considered and believed the prosecution case/evidence, Court had approached the case in an entirely illegal and improper manner in so far as it had discussed the defence case first and then the prosecution case---Court having accepted the prosecution case, after rejecting the defence version,, dealt the case in a topsy-turvy way which could not be approved.--[Judgment]. (b) Criminal trial--- ----- ' Cases of one version or of two versions---Rules/principles for appreciation of evidence laid by the Supreme Court: -[Evidence]. Supreme Court has laid down rules/principles for the appreciation of evidence in criminal cases of one version or of two versions to the effect that: the proper and the legal way of dealing with a criminal case is that the Court should first discuss the prosecution case/evidence in order to come to an independent finding with regard to the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses and the probability of the story told by them, and then examine the statement of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence. If the Court disbelieves/rejects/excludes from consideration the prosecution evidence, then the Court must accept the statement of the accused as a whole without scrutiny. If the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. is exculpatory, then he must be acquitted. If the statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. believed as a whole, constitutes some offence punishable wider the Code/law, then the accused should be convicted for that offence only. In case of counter versions, if the Court believes prosecution evidence and is not prepared to exclude the same from consideration, it will not straightaway convict the accused but will review the entire evidence including the circumstances appearing…
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