Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1695 2001 SLD 1695 2001 SCMR 51
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.55 of 1999, decision dated: 2-06-2000
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY AND RANA BHAGWAN DAS, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

MUHAMMAD ANWAR

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 105,106,302

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss.105, 106 & 302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider as to whether the accused in the circumstances of case had exercised the right of self-defence, therefore, extreme penalty of death was not called for; and whether High Court had appraised the evidence in conformity with the well-established principles relating to appreciation of evidence as laid down by the superior Courts to ensure safe administration of justice in criminal cases. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss.105 & 106---Self-defence, plea of---Proof---Onus---Where accused had taken the plea of self-defence, burden would shift upon him to prove the same. Zarid Khan v. Gulsher and another 1972 SCMR 597 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- -----Ss.302, 105 & 106 --Appraisal of evidence---Right of self-defence, plea of---Accepting the plea in totality---Accused raised the plea during investigation---Trial Court relying on such plea awarded death penalty to the accused for the reason that the accused failed to prove such plea during the trial but co-accused were acquitted as the Trial Court disbelieved the ocular account of prosecution witnesses to their extent---High Court in appeal disbelieved the supporting evidence i.e. incriminating empties and revolver, produced by the prosecution but confirmed the death sentence of the accused---Validity---Where the High Court disbelieved the supporting evidence, the prosecution was left in possession of the ocular statement of both the eye-witnesses and the same could not be believed for the sake of safe-administration of justice unless there was some corroboration---Supreme Court accepted the plea of the accused made by him in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. in totality---No material was available on record to measure the apprehension of the accused of danger to his person as well as property which persuaded him to fire upon the deceased---By raising a plausible defence plea, the accused who though himself had not received even a single injury on his body nor any weapon had been recovered from near the dead body or from the possession of…
🔒
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