| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2734 2001 SLD 2734 2001 PLD 117 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1998, decided on 19th December, 2000. DATE of hearing: 26th October, 2000
TALAT QAYUM QURESHI AND SALEEM DIL KHAN, JJ
Khawaja Muhammad Khan for Appellant. Nek Nawaz for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 1998, decided on 19th December, 2000. DATE of hearing: 26th October, 2000
TALAT QAYUM QURESHI AND SALEEM DIL KHAN, JJ
Khawaja Muhammad Khan for Appellant. Nek Nawaz for the State
HASHIM KHAN
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302,149,324,149,148
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/149, 324/149 & 148---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.161---Statement of a deceased witness recorded by the police not examined at the trial not to be relied upon---Statement of an eye-witness recorded under S.161. Cr.P.C. who could not be examined at the trial due to his death, cannot be relied upon. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss.302/149, 324/149 & 148---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant had specifically charged the accused in the F.I.R. for entering the house alongwith the absconding accused and subsequently in her statement at the trial she had directly charged the accused for firing alongwith the said absconding accused; such a negligible difference was not a material improvement by the complainant on her previous statement---Motive for the commission of the offence had been proved---Crime weapon having not been recovered, the Investigating Officer had rightly not sent the crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Even - otherwise, accused had never requested for examination of the said crime empties by the Forensic Science Laboratory even during trial---Ocular testimony was supported by medical evidence recovery of crime empties and blood-stained earth from the scene of occurrence---Complainant being injured and the inmate of the house was a natural witness---Accused were closely known to the eye-witnesses who were distinctly visible to her in the light shed by the two electric bulbs of 100 watts---Common interest of the accused with the absconding coaccused was evident from the cross-examination of the eye-witness at the trial---Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Proof---Motive being a corroborative evidence is required to be proved only and is not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt like evidence on substantial charge. JUDGMENT SALEEM DIL KHAN, J.--Hashim Khan appellant was tried by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Peshawar in Sessions Case No. 116 of 1996 entered through F.I.R. No. 158 dated 21-2-1995 registered at Police Station Bhana Mari under sections 302//324/148/149, P.P.C. The trial concluded in…
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