| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1969 SLG 217 1969 SLD 217 1969 PLD 293 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. I-P of 1969, decision dated: 12th May 1969.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 21st January 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1968).
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SAJJAD AHMAD AND ABDUS SATTAR, JJ
Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Appellants. Raja Said Akbar, Advocate General West Pakistan (Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali,. Attorney
Criminal Appeal No. I-P of 1969, decision dated: 12th May 1969.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Peshawar Bench, Peshawar, dated the 21st January 1969, in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1968).
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, SAJJAD AHMAD AND ABDUS SATTAR, JJ
Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan, Senior Attorney for Appellants. Raja Said Akbar, Advocate General West Pakistan (Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali,. Attorney
USMAN KHAN AND others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Manner in which deceased was injured and speculation about time of occurrence with reference to contents of stomach of deceased-Judges not expert to form safe opinion in such matters without summoning and examining Doctor or Ballistic Expert of late, a tendency has grown to discard the testimony of seemingly reliable and natural witnesses to a crime on speculation as to the manner in which the deceased person in the case was injured or about the time of occurrence with reference to the contents of the stomach. While one can appreciate the anxiety shown by the Judges to test the credibility of the eye-witnesses with reference to the circumstances attending upon the commission of the crime, it falls to be said that Judges are not experts in medical science to form a safe opinion on these matters. It is desirable, therefore, to summon the doctor who examined the injuries or performed the autopsy as a witness' and investigate the reasons for his opinion. The same holds truer of the opinion given by a Ballistic Expert. Natha Singha v. Emperor A I R 1946 P C 187 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Trial Court acquitting accused-High Court generally does not interfere-Reasons given in support of order of acquittal wholly artificial-Interference by High Court, held, justified. Abdul Majid v. Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal' Affairs P L D 1964 S C 422 ; Sheo Swarup and others v. The KingEmperor A I R 1934 P C 227(2) ; Gul Nawaz v. The State1968 S C M R 1168(2) ; Mir Ahmad v. The State P L D 1962' S C 489 ; Mitho v. The State P L D 1962 Kar. 1 ; The State v. Umed Ali and others P L D 1967 Kar. 440 and Additional Advocate-General, West Pakistan and others v. Rajab and others P L D 1967 Kar. 227 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Alibi, plea of----Defence evidence in support of plea not strong but not challenged" by prosecution-Benefit of doubt given to accused. [p. 299]A JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.----Usman Khan, his brother Azama Khan and two sons Sardar Khan and Idrees Khan of village: Shahabkhel, P. S. Badaber, appellants herein, were acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, of the…
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