| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 714 2005 SLD 714 2005 PLD 484 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1999, decision dated: 6-12-2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-6-1998 passed by Lahore High Court, in M.R. No. 461 of 1992 and Cr.A. No. 1009 of 1992).
HAMID ALI MIRZA, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No.96 of 1999, decision dated: 6-12-2004.(On appeal from the judgment dated 17-6-1998 passed by Lahore High Court, in M.R. No. 461 of 1992 and Cr.A. No. 1009 of 1992).
HAMID ALI MIRZA, MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD RIAZ
VS
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and another MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---------S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether the of High Court was in consonance with law as enunciated by Supreme Court, keeping in view the evidence on record. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 302---Evidence---Material contradictions---Effect---Material contradictions and discrepancies in evidence in a criminal case may create doubt in prosecution case and if eye witnesses are inimical and interested, such doubt may lead to reasonable possibility of the witnesses being not truthful or inference can be drawn that they, by suppressing the facts, had made a dishonest statement---Mere relationship or enmity is not sufficient to discard the evidence of a natural witness or hold him not truthful and trustworthy---Not an inflexible rule that in all Circumstances; such contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence must be treated to be injurious to the credibility of a witness and his evidence must be excluded from consideration or he must be held not truthful witness---Rather the ultimate test of veracity of a witness is the inherent merit of his own statement. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302/34---Re-appraisal of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Opinion of doctor with regard to number of shots fired---Eye-witnesses, presence of---Trial Court awarded death sentence to the accused but High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the statement of eye-witnesses was not supported by medical evidence and the witnesses were inimical towards the accused---Validity---Reasons given by High Court for disbelieving the presence of witnesses at the spot were highly speculative, flimsy and artificial---Conclusion that the injuries on the person of deceased were the result of one shot which was probably not fired froth' front and medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular account of eye-witnesses, was , also not based on sound reasons---Statement of doctor to the effect that the injuries were the result of single shot being only an opinion, which…
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