| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1766 2008 SLD 1766 2008 SCMR 1086 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2007, decision dated: 9-04-2008, hearing DATE : 27-03-2008
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND ZIA PERWEZ, JJ
F.K. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. M. Siddique Khan Baloch, D.P.G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State. Ch. Naseer Ahmad Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No.449 of 2007, decision dated: 9-04-2008, hearing DATE : 27-03-2008
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR AND ZIA PERWEZ, JJ
F.K. Butt, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. M. Siddique Khan Baloch, D.P.G. and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the State. Ch. Naseer Ahmad Sindhu, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant
FARYAD ALI
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 302(b)/34 & 324---Reappraisal of evidence---Medical evidence,--Scope---Type of weapon---Medical evidence or expert's opinion has always been treated to be confirmatory in nature---Medical evidence cannot establish presence of accused in the occurrence and weapon of offence used or injury caused to deceased by him---Opinion as to injury sustained by injured or deceased was caused by which weapon, it is the medical expert who can opine that a specific injury was inflicted by which kind of weapon. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)/34 & 324---Reappraisal of evidence---Ocular and medical account---Conflict---When there is conflict between ocular account and medical evidence, if ocular account is straight, fair and confidence inspiring, the weight has to be given to ocular account and it could prevail---Not sufficient to suggest non-presence of eye-witnesses at spot but conflict of medical evidence and ocular account in respect of number and nature of injuries can be relevant to ascertain role of an individual accused in the occurrence. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---Ss. 302(b)/34 & 324---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt--Scope---Accused is the most favourite child of law and every benefit of doubt goes to him regardless of fact whether he has taken any such plea or not. Fazal Din and others v. Rahmat and others 1968 SCMR 18 and Muhammad Nawaz and others v. The State and others PLD 2005 SC 40 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---Ss. 302(b)/34 & 324---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185---Reappraisal of evidence---Common intention---Determining factors---Sentence of death awarded to accused by Trial Court was converted by High Court into imprisonment for life---Validity---Common intention of accused persons for committing murder was a question of fact which could be ascertained on the basis of acts and conduct of accused, ferocity of attack, weapon used, number of blows coupled with element of pre-concert of mind---Accused had caused injuries to prosecution witnesses with blunt weapon and as per medical evidence, no such injury had been sustained by deceased at the hands of accused…
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