Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2446 2002 SLD 2446 2002 PLD 52
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2001, decided on 13th September, 2001. (On Appeal from the judgment/order, dated 28th February, 2001 re High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 665/94 and M.R. No. 19/95).
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State

ALLAH DITT

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 457---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--­Complainant had lodged the F.I.R. promptly nominating the accused to have fired on the deceased---Eye-witnesses had furnished trustworthy, confidence­ inspiring and consistent evidence so far as the act of firing by the accused on the deceased was concerned---Prosecution witnesses had no enmity of any nature against the accused and had no reason to falsely involve him in the commission of murder of their brother and allow the real culprit to go scot­free---Substitution of real culprit was also a rare phenomenon in the system of criminal justice---Accused having rightly been saddled with the responsibility of murder of the deceased, impugned warranted no interference---Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly. Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Proposition enshrined in maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable and testimony of a witness is acceptable against one set of accused though the same has been rejected against the other set of accused facing same trial---Evidence deserving to be believed must get corroboration on material particulars and the conviction should be based on the principle of sifting grain out of chaff for safe administration of justice---Furnishing of independent corroboration does not mean that it must come from other source---Consistent statements of eye­witnesses can also be considered corroboratory evidence if the same do not lack unanimity in their substantial evidence, i.e. the portion in which they have narrated the happening of the actual incident and the intrinsic value of their evidence has remained consistent with each other. Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758 ref. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--In this petition leave has been sought against judgment dated 28-2-2001, passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby while accepting Murder Reference No. 19 of 1995, death sentence awarded to petitioner has been confirmed and Criminal Appeal No.665 of 1994 filed by him to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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