Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1861 2005 SLD 1861 2005 PLD 86
Quetta High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 4 of 2002(ATA) and 10 of 2003(ATA), decided on 14th March, 2005. DATE of hearing: 22nd February, 2005
AMANULLAH KHAN, ACTG. C.J., AND FAZALUR REHMAN, J
W.N. Kohli for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2002)(ATA). Muhammad Khalid Dogar Public Prosecutor for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 2002)(ATA). Muhammad Khalid Dogar Public Prosecutor for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2003)(ATA)

ABDUL SALAM and others

VS

THE STATE and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 324---Appreciation of evidence---Entire prosecution case was based on the identification parade and the statement of a prosecution witness who had seen the accused soon after the incident running away along with a bag---Prosecution witnesses had made material improvements in their statements which did not fit in the circumstances of the case---Presence of said witnesses at the scene of occurrence was doubtful and their testimony was worthless---No description of the accused was given by both the witnesses of the identification parade as to how they had identified him---Legal formalities were not complied with in conducting the identification parade and possibility of the accused having been shown to the witnesses before conducting the same could not be ruled out---Incident had taken place in broad daylight on a busy road where even the' passersby had received fire-arm injuries during dacoity, but neither any eye-witness was examined in the case, nor any crime empties were recovered from the spot---Prosecution witnesses, who were policemen, appeared to have been examined to strengthen and support the prosecution case---Accused was extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. State and others 1992 SCMR 2088 and Lal Singh v. The Crown (1924) 5 Indian LR 396 and Muhammad Ismail Khan v. Manzoor Ahmed and others PLD 1966 SC 664 ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 22---Identification parade---Principles---No reliance can be placed on the identification parade unless description of the accused is given by the witness in his police statement. Asghar Ali alias Sabah and others v. State and others 1992 SCMR 2088 and Lal Singh v. The Crown (1924) 5 Indian LR 396 ref. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 22---Identification parade---Evidence of identification---Principal evidence of identification is the evidence of a witness given in Court as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out a particular accused person and the details of the part which he played in the crime--Statement made by such a witness at an identification…
🔒
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