2004 P Cr (PLP)
AWAIS and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AWAIS and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (AWAIS and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 324/337/‑A(i)
Complainant/victim had fully supported the prosecution version and fully charged her brother and his friend for causing her fire‑arm injuries‑‑‑Complainant was subjected to lengthy and searching cross‑examination, but nothing could be elicited to shatter her testimony‑‑Alleged discrepancies in statement of complainant/victim were inconsequential and not fatal to the case‑‑ Occurrence had taken place in a broad daylight‑ on a working day and in a busy street of the city‑‑‑F.I.R. in the case was lodged without much delay and both accused were specifically named therein‑‑‑Said facts by themselves would rule out the possibility of false implication of accused in the case‑‑‑Large number of people from locality though were stated to have seen the occurrence and no independent and disinterested witness from the locality had been produced at the trial to lend support to prosecution version, but in view of the social conditions prevalent in the society, strangers avoid to poke their nose in the affairs of other people-‑ Non‑collection of blood or recovery of empties from the spot was not fatal to prosecution case as Investigating Officer having visited spot after about fourteen days of occurrence, possibility of blood and empties having vanished or destroyed, could not be excluded‑‑‑Ocular account of incident was not in, conflict with medical evidence‑‑Contention that complainant being not on good terms with her husband, possibility was that her husband had a hand in the affair, was repelled because nothing was on file giving the slightest indication to that effect‑‑‑Strong motive had been set up in the F.I.R. leading accused to commit the crime and said motive had been successfully proved‑‑‑Trial Court in circumstances, had rightly convicted and sentenced accused‑‑‑In absence of any illegality by way of misreading or non‑reading of evidence or jurisdictional error or illegality, finding of Trial Court could not be interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Criminal trial‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Rule of corroboration‑‑-Rule of corroboration was to be applied by way of abundant caution and mandatory rule to be always and necessarily insisted in each case‑‑‑True test was that if the direct evidence furnished by the witnesses contained exaggerations and was of doubtful veracity, independent corroboration should be insisted‑‑‑Rule of corroboration was also attracted in a case in which the evidence was creditworthy, but not of such a degree as to result in conviction of accused‑‑‑Requirement of corroboration would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature of evidence in the case‑‑‑If the evidence did not suffer from any major or significant contradiction, corroboration was not insisted, but in a case of interested evidence, corroboration either from direct or from circumstantial source was sought and in such case, corroboration by medical evidence, motive and recovery of weapon of offence were enough to maintain the conviction. Muhammad Afzal and 2 others v. The State 2003 SCMR 1678 ref. (c) Criminal trial‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Conviction on solitary statement of complainant‑‑‑Conviction could be awarded on basis of solitary statement of complainant/victim provided it rang true and inspired confidence. Mali v. State 1969 SCMR 76; Muhammad Siddique alias Ashraf Alias Achhi and 3 others v. State 1971 SCMR 659; Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others PLD 1980 SC 225 and Riaz Hussain v. State 2001 SCMR 177 ref. Afridi Khan for Appellants. Miss Musarrat Hilali, A.A.‑G. for the State. Muhammad Ashraf Khan for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 13th October, 2003.