| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 620 2000 SLD 620 = 2000 PLD 1 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 249, 250 of 1996 and 302 of 1997,decision dated: 6-10-1999.
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND SH. RIAZ AHMED, JJ
Sh. Muhammad Zamir, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1996).Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record (in Crimi
Criminal Appeals Nos. 249, 250 of 1996 and 302 of 1997,decision dated: 6-10-1999.
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR AND SH. RIAZ AHMED, JJ
Sh. Muhammad Zamir, Advocate Supreme Court, Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 1996).Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record (in Crimi
Criminal Appeal No.249 of 1996KHAWAND BAKHSH and othersvsTHE STATE and othersCriminal Appeal No.250 of 1996vsBANGUL KHANCriminal Appeal No.302 of 1997Mrs. SALLAL AKBAR BUGTIvsBANGUL KHAN and another
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302/120-B/34 & 324
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302/120-B/34 & 324---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--�Leave to appeal was- granted by Supreme Court to accused to consider whether sufficient corroboration was available warranting their conviction after disbelieving the ocular testimony qua acquitted co-accused.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---Ss. 302/120-B/34 & 324---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--�Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to the prosecution and widow of the deceased to see whether the acquittal of accused was justified.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302/120-B/34 & 324---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185---Appeal against acquittal---Accused did not appear to be present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time---Nothing was recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest---Accused was not identified in the identification parade--�High Court had not accepted the judicial confession of accused for valid reasons---Participation of accused in the occurrence was, therefore, doubtful and no miscarriage of justice had taken place by his acquittal---Appeals against acquittal of accused by the State. and widow of the deceased were dismissed accordingly.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302/120-B/34 & 324---Appraisal of evidence---Accused had been identified in the identification parade---Fire-arms recovered from the accused had matched with the crime empties recovered from the spot---Injured eye�witnesses accompanying the deceased at the relevant time had named the accused as perpetrators of the crime---Accused had a motive against the deceased--�Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances.Tawaib Khan and another v. The State PLD 1970 SC 13; The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 418; Muhammad Shafi and 4 others v. The State 1974 SCMR 289; Aminullah v. The State PLD 1982 SC 429; Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1984 SCMR 190 and Sikandar and 2 others v. The State PLD 1981 SC 477 ref.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302/120-B/34 & 324---Appreciation of evidence---Maxim: "Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "---Principles stated.The rule about the…