Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 2664 2010 SLD 2664 2010 SCMR 374
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.593 of 2006, decision dated: 14-10-2009
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, MAHMOOD AKHTAR SHAHID SIDDIQUI AND RAHMAT HUSSAIN, JAFFERI, 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 SALEEM

VS

. THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Qatl-e¬-amd---Leave to appeal was granted to accused by Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence. (b) Penal code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Reappraisal of evidence--Incident had taken place at midnight and there was no source of light at that time---Prosecution witnesses in order to overcome the lacuna of absence of light had improved their statements to strengthen the question of identity of accused and fitting in the circumstances of the case---F.I.R. did not disclose the presence of eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence---Ocular testimony was in conflict with medical evidence---Placing reliance on an unreasonable, improbable and implausible statement of a disinterested witness not fitting in the circumstances of the case, would lead to a very dangerous consequence---Statements of eye-witnesses did not come within the established rule of acceptance of evidence and the same could not be relied upon without any corroboration, which was lacking in the case---Accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted in circumstances. Haroon v. State 1995 SCMR 1627 and Muhammad Rafique v. State 1977 SCMR 457 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---General rule---Statement of a witness must be in consonance with the probabilities fitting in the circumstances of the case and also inspire confidence in the mind of a reasonable and prudent person---In the presence of said elements the statement of a worst enemy of the accused can be accepted and relied upon without corroboration, but in absence thereof the statement of a pious man can be rejected without second thought---Acid test of veracity of a witness is the inherent merit of his own statement. Haroon v. State 1995 SCMR 1627 ref. Malik Muhammad Kabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (on behalf of Government of Balochistan). Date of hearing: 14th October, 2009. JUDGMENT RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---On 16-5-2000, the appellant Muhammad Saleem was convicted for an offence punishable under section…
🔒
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