2004P3057 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 2004P3057 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004P3057 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004P3057 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004P3057 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
S. 302/34
Proof of motive was not essential for establishing guilt of accused
Even without the proof of motive, conviction could be recorded on a capital charge provided case was otherwise proved by prosecution. Saeedullah Khan v. State 1986 SCMR 1027 and PLD 2004 SC 44 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 302/34
Law did not fix any particular number of witnesses for establishing the guilt of accused
Quality of evidence and not the quantity of witnesses would matter
If prosecution felt satisfied that its case could be proved by producing a single witness, then no compulsion was on it to produce all the witnesses mentioned in F.I.R. Riaz Ahmad v. The State 1986 SCMR 1460 ref. (d) Criminal Trial
Abscondence of accused was a weak type of evidence and by itself could not be made basis of conviction-- However, to determine whether abscondence spoke about the innocence of accused or his guilt, would be determined keeping in view other circumstances of case. Zahid Mufti for Appellant. Qari Abdur Rashid, D.A.-G. for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 9th June, 2004.