| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1452 2001 SLD 1452 2001 SCMR 1111 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 153 and 154 of 1998, decision dated: 15-03-2001. dates of hearing: 8th and 10-01-2001
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JAVED IQBAL AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
A. K. Dogar,, Advocate Supreme Court and Munir Ahmed Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1998). Sardar Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in Criminal A
Criminal Appeals Nos. 153 and 154 of 1998, decision dated: 15-03-2001. dates of hearing: 8th and 10-01-2001
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JAVED IQBAL AND HAMID ALI MIRZA, JJ
A. K. Dogar,, Advocate Supreme Court and Munir Ahmed Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 1998). Sardar Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in Criminal A
ALLAH DAD and others
VS
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/109, 337-F(ii) & 337-F(iii)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether impugned judgment of -High Court wherein evidence on record had neither been discussed nor analyzed on the basis of contentions raised by either side would be sustainable; whether prosecution witnesses who were admittedly injured and had fully implicated the accused could be discredited or deemed interested on the ground of their relationship with the deceased; whether prosecution evidence was materially discrepant and contained improbabilities casting doubts upon actual incident thereby making it untrustworthy by virtue of reasoning offered on behalf of the accused; what was the effect of injuries caused to the accused; whether under the law it would be the responsibility of prosecution or that of defence to logically explain their existence on their bodies; whether motive was duly established or remained shrouded in mystery and what, was the impact of motive upon ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution especially in the light of the stand taken by some of the accused in their respective statements and whether evidence brought on record which included ocular testimony, medical evidence, recoveries and reports of Experts coupled with motive was sufficient to establish collective responsibility of all the accused persons and, sentence awarded to them needed enhancement. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/109, 337-F(ii) & 337-F(iii)---Appraisal of evidence---Presence of injured prosecution witnesses at the scene of occurrence was established without any shadow. of doubt---Eye-witnesses had corroborated each other on each material point without any significant contradiction and the mere fact of their being interested in prosecution was not, by itself, enough to discard their evidence altogether---Ocular testimony was consistent and unimpeachable and although it did not require any corroboration, yet the corroboration was available in the shape of recoveries and medical evidence---Prosecution had satisfactorily explained the simple injuries sustained by 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