2004 P Cr (PLP)
SHAHZULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Malik Hamid Saeed and Fazlur Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHZULLAH‑‑‑Appellant 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: Malik Hamid Saeed and Fazlur Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (SHAHZULLAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Latif Baloch for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 3rd February, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Prosecution case entirely rested upon the statement of prosecution witness who was not an eye witness of occurrence, but he had furnished `last seen evidence of deceased in the company of accused and no other evidence was available from any independent source to connect accused with commission of offence‑‑‑Said last seen evidence was in the nature of "circumstantial evidence" and in such evidence rule was that no link in the chain should be broken and circumstances should be such as could‑not be explained away on any hypothesis other than the guilt of accused‑‑ Accused, in circumstances, was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. 1972 SCMR 15; PLD 1991 SC 718; 1994 PCr.LJ 956 and PLD 1996 SC 305 ref. Rajab Ali for the State. Waheed Anjum for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Prosecution case entirely rested upon the statement of prosecution witness who was not an eye witness of occurrence, but he had furnished `last seen evidence of deceased in the company of accused and no other evidence was available from any independent source to connect accused with commission of offence‑‑‑Said last seen evidence was in the nature of "circumstantial evidence" and in such evidence rule was that no link in the chain should be broken and circumstances should be such as could‑not be explained away on any hypothesis other than the guilt of accused‑‑ Accused, in circumstances, was acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. 1972 SCMR 15; PLD 1991 SC 718; 1994 PCr.LJ 956 and PLD 1996 SC 305 ref. Abdul Latif Baloch for Appellant. Rajab Ali for the State. Waheed Anjum for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 2003.