Case Details

Citation(s)
2010 SLG 495 2010 SLD 495 2010 PLD 632
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.177 of 2003, decision dated: 21st April, 2009, hearing DATE : 21st April, 2009
MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JAN, MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ
Ch. M. Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Rafi, Complainant (in person). Qari Abdur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court (on behalf of N.W.F.P.) for the State.

AZHAR ALI

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),449,452,337A(ii),337A(iii)

Law: Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908

Section: 417

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 449, 452, 337-A(ii) & 337-A(iii)---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass etc.---Appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Statement of the complainant regarding the presence and role of accused in the occurrence and material contradictions, when read in the light of non-recovery of pistol and crime empties from the site---Alleged shot fired by accused from his pistol had gone amiss---Entry of accused in the place of occurrence was not proved by examining the necessary prosecution witnesses---Injuries allegedly caused by the accused to a lady prosecution witness by the "butt" of his pistol, had been denied by her while deposing in court---Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused on benefit of doubt disbelieving his presence and participation in the occurrence---Findings of Trial Court were not the result of inapplicability of mind, misreading, misinterpretation of evidence, rather the same were based on sound and cogent analysis and appreciation of the evidentiary principles of criminal jurisprudence--High Court had failed to apply the test of impossibility as that of imbalance to upset the of Trial Court, which was neither perverse nor artificial, shocking, ridiculous, flimsy or suffering from distrotion or misreading of evidence---As regards High Court, at best it could be a case of mere "difference of opinion" on the evaluation of evidence, which was not a ground for depriving an acquitted accused of the in his favour---High Court was not justified in setting aside the Trial Court's of acquittal and substituting the same with a of conviction---Impugned passed by High Court was consequently set aside and the of Trial Court acquitting the accused was restored---Appeal was accepted accordingly. State v. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others 1995 SCMR 635; Inayatullah v. The State PLD 1979 SC 956; Sheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227(2); Mirza Noor Hussain v. Farooq Zaman and 2 others 1993 SCMR 305; Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State 1992 SCMR 96; Ahmed v. The Crown PLD 1951 FC 107; Abdul Majid v. Superintendent of Legal Affairs, Government of Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 426; Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan and 2…
🔒
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