| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 3376 2009 SLD 3376 2009 PCRLJ 629 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No.135/J and Criminal Revision No.39 of 2005, decided on 25th February, 2009.Date of hearing: 11th February, 2009.
Before Muhammad Alam Khan and Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani, JJ
Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi for Appellant. Farooq Akhtar for the State. Allah Nawaz for the Complainant.
Criminal Jail Appeal No.135/J and Criminal Revision No.39 of 2005, decided on 25th February, 2009.Date of hearing: 11th February, 2009.
Before Muhammad Alam Khan and Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani, JJ
Muhammad Iqbal Khan Kundi for Appellant. Farooq Akhtar for the State. Allah Nawaz for the Complainant.
SAIF-UR-REHMAN----Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE----Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Report was lodged after two and a half hours from the occurrence---Such delay in lodging report being a natural consequence, had sufficiently been explained by the prosecution in the evidence---Neither of the eye-witnesses was related to either party nor had got any cordial relation with any one of them; they were cross-examined at length, but nothing was brought on the record to show their interest with the deceased party or any motive to falsely charge accused; their testimony was confidence inspiring; and no inherent flaw was found therein---Presence of. said eye-witnesses could not be doubted as at the relevant time they were present in the lands in vicinity of their village---Eye-witness account was not in conflict with the medical evidence---Even if the eye-witness account was in conflict with medical evidence, the confidence inspiring ocular account could not be overlooked---Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt---Guilt of accused had been proved by the testimony of two disinterested eye-witnesses whose statements could not be shattered in cross-examination---Accused, in circumstances, was rightly held guilty of the offence charged with---Evidence brought on record commensurated with the sentences awarded to accused because the family dispute existed in the background of the occurrence; and the exact cause of the offence was shrouded in mystery; and it was not discernible from the record of the case---No ground was available for enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused. Yaqoob Shah v. The State PLD 1976 SC 53; Muhammad Hanif v. The State PLD 1993 SC 895; Ghulamullah and another v. The State 1996 SCMR 187; Abdur Rehman v. The State 1998 SCMR 1778; Wahid v. The State PLD 2002 SC 62; Saeedullah Khan v. The State 1986 SCMR 1027; Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Muhammad Ilyas and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 1602; Riaz Masih alias Mithoo v. The State 1995 SCMR 1730 and Hussain v. The State 2006 PCr.LJ 934 rel. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This is jail criminal appeal filed by the convict-appellant…
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