| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 105 1966 SLD 105 1966 PLD 664 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1965, decision dated: 15th April 1966.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Aslam Riaz Hussain, Additional Advocate-General, West Pakistan (Ahmad Khan Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Barkat Ali Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court,
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1965, decision dated: 15th April 1966.
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., HAMOODUR RAHMAN AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Aslam Riaz Hussain, Additional Advocate-General, West Pakistan (Ahmad Khan Kazi, Advocate Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Barkat Ali Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court,
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1965 THE STATE
VS
MANZOOR AHMAD AND Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1965 MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN vs (1) MANZOOR AHMAD, AND (2) THB STATE Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1965
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3) - Leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider whether appraisal of evidence by High Court (while passing an order of acquittal in an appeal from convictions for murder) was made upon correct principles. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 - (Criminal appeal)-Sessions Court convicting accused on charge of murder and passing sentence of death-High Court acquitting in appeal, doubting prosecution had succeeded in establishing "any circumstances" on which it had rested-Case depending "wholly" on circumstantial evidence -"Re-appraisal" of evidence by Supreme Court. (c) Criminal trial-Circumstantial evidence-(Cries from victim of murder)-Two "high-spirited young men" fighting in a closed room in first floor of a suburban building "over love of a girl" No cries for help expected in such circumstances, especially when knife injuries had cut through vocal organs of deceased. (d) Criminal trial-(Witness)-(Murder case)-Boy-servant of tea-shop, indulging in "prevarications - Whether "safe to rely" in statement of such witness. (e) Circumstantial evidence-Not explainable on any hypothesis consistent with total innocence of accused-Onus heavy on accused to furnish explanation for such evidence Onus cannot be discharged by merely hinting of "possibilities" or "suggesting some remoter hypothesis". (f) Circumstantial evidence-Inference of guilt when to be made-"Straining" of evidence "in favour of accused" or of prosecution deprecated. In a case resting wholly on circumstantial evidence the Court must remember that the "processes of inference and deduction are essentially involved-frequently of a delicate and perplexing character-liable to numerous causes of fallacy." Mere suspicion will not be sufficient to justify conviction. Before the guilt of the accused can be inferred merely from inculpatory circumstances those circumstances must be found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and "incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt." The circumstances sought to be relied upon must have been established beyond all doubt. But this only means a reasonable…
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