| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 428 2007 SLD 428 2007 PLD 83 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2006, decided on 14th December, 2006. dates of hearing: 13th and 14th December, 2006
TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
M. Zahurul Haq Barrister-at-Law for Appellant. Sher Bahader Khan for the State. Wiqar Ahmad Khan for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 581 of 2006, decided on 14th December, 2006. dates of hearing: 13th and 14th December, 2006
TALAAT QAYUM QURESHI AND DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JJ
M. Zahurul Haq Barrister-at-Law for Appellant. Sher Bahader Khan for the State. Wiqar Ahmad Khan for the Complainant
ABDUL AHAD
VS
THE STATE and another
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 295-B,188
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 59
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 295-B & 188---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant at bail stage in his statement on Oath had exonerated accused from the charge, but while appearing at the trial as prosecution witness he resiled from his earlier statement giving unfounded explanation that he had given same under the pressure of elders of the area---Complainant, who was the star witness, had come out for a noble cause, but his subsequent vacillating and wavering conduct, jumping from one stance to another, had reduced his credibility almost to naught---Complainant, who made statements mutually inconsistent, was neither reliable nor was entitled to be listened to as credibility-wise the probative value of his testimony, was drastically reduced---Complainant had not brought on record his religious qualification to prove the level of his knowledge with regard to Islamic "Fiqah ---Court witness at the trial had given indescriptive, inconclusive and variant rather inconsistent opinions on the issue, which under no circumstances could be made safe or valid basis for conviction on capital charge, but Trial Court had acted blind foldedly while placing reliance on it---Accused on available evidence, in no manner could be tagged with the alleged offence as prosecution had miserably failed to establish a direct nexus between accused and alleged objectionable booklets---Investigations were choked in half way without taking it to ultimate and logical conclusion as the person responsible for authoring the text, printing and publishing the same had not been discovered---Evidence led at trial left behind much to be debated upon---Same was of very little evidentiary value entirely insufficient to convict accused to suffer capital punishment---Religious scholar appeared as witness had neither brought on record his qualification nor had told the court about his competency in delivering "Fatwa" against accused; he could not quote anything from "Sharia" that any addition which was not derogatory in nature to the original text of a "Surah"; would come within the mischief of desecration or distortion of Holy Qur'an or part of it---In absence of any quotation to support…
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