| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLG 242 1996 SLD 242 1996 PLD 305 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.292 of 1994, decision dated: 28-11-1995(on appeal from the judgment dated 17-1-994 of the PeshawarHigh Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, passed in CriminalAppeal No.23 of 1991).
AJMAL MIAN, FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JJ
Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.Fateh Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
Criminal Appeal No.292 of 1994, decision dated: 28-11-1995(on appeal from the judgment dated 17-1-994 of the PeshawarHigh Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, passed in CriminalAppeal No.23 of 1991).
AJMAL MIAN, FAZAL ILAHI KHAN AND MUKHTAR AHMAD, JUNEJO, JJ
Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.Fateh Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.
KHURSHID vsTHE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------- S. 302/34 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) --- Leave to appeal was granted to consider the question, whether the evidence brought on record was sufficiently strong to connect the accused with the crimes beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- S. 302/34 --- Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence --- Evidence of last seen --- Circumstances that deceased was last seen with the accused persons is a reliable piece of circumstantial evidence if corroborated by other piece of circumstantial evidence which are interlinked and which clearly connect the' accused persons with the commission of the offence charged with. Allah Ditta v. The State PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 290; The state v. Manzoor Ahmad PLD 1966 SC 664; Allah Ditto v. The State 1968 SCMR 378 and Allah Ditta v. The Crown 1969 SCMR 558 ref. (c) Criminal trial-- ---- Circumstantial evidence---Appraisal. of circumstantial evidence by Courts --- Principles -[Evidence]. While appraising the circumstantial evidence the Court is to keep in mind the location of the incident. If the place of incident is a place where no witness was available and the accused had the exclusive knowledge about the incident, the simpliciter denial on the part of the accused will not be sufficient to nullify the circumstantial evidence of the nature which directly connects him with the commission of the offence charged with. But he should raise a plea of the nature which on being tested on the touchstone of probabilities warrants a reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. Though the Courts are supposed to follow the well-settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, namely, that an accused person is presumed to be innocent, that the Prosecution is to prove a criminal case against an accused person beyond reasonable doubt and in case two views are possible the view which favours the accused person, should be preferred; and that all benefit of doubts should be extended to the accused, but, at the same time, the Court should also take notice of the changing circumstances of the present days. Even in cases where eye-witnesses are available they refuse to appear as…
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