2004 P Cr (PLP)
AJMAL KHAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent.
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AJMAL KHAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent. |
| Primary Law | (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) 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) (AJMAL KHAN — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302/324
Matter was reported to the police promptly
Accused had been directly nominated in the report and a specific role of firing had been attributed to him
Witnesses from the spot had fully supported the prosecution case and said witnesses had justified their presence at the spot
Prosecution witnesses without any omission or addition had narrated prosecution version as contained in the F:I.R. which stood corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of crime empties from the spot
Prosecution version was- supported by natural and independent witnesses including daughter of the deceased who bore stamp of injuries on her person- '-Defence, despite lengthy cross-examination had not been able to dislodge the presence of witnesses either in the village on the day of occurrence or near the place of occurrence
Mere fact that said witnesses were closely related to the deceased, by itself was not sufficient to discard their testimony as mere relationship between the witnesses and the deceased was not enough to discard their evidence unless witness had motive to falsely implicate the accused
Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony
No such serious enmity existed which could be served as a motivating factor to falsely involve accused in such like offence and why the real culprit should be spared as substitution was a rare phenomenon
Prosecution had brought sufficient evidence on record to connect accused with commission of crime and evidence had been evaluated and assessed in the right direction
Minor contradictions and omission pointed out in testimony of eye-witnesses were insignificant and did not damage the prosecution case
Accused had been rightly found guilty for the crime and judgment passed by Trial Court being unexceptionable warranted no interference of High Court.
Ss. 302/324
Benefit of doubt-- Entitlement
Prosecution primarily was bound to establish guilt against accused without shadow of doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence enabling the Court to draw conclusion whether or not prosecution had succeeded in establishing accusation against the accused
If Court would come to the conclusion that charges imputed against accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then accused would become entitled to be acquitted on getting benefit of doubt in prosecution case.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Ss. 302/324
Matter was reported to the police promptly
Accused had been directly nominated in the report and a specific role of firing had been attributed to him
Witnesses from the spot had fully supported the prosecution case and said witnesses had justified their presence at the spot
Prosecution witnesses without any omission or addition had narrated prosecution version as contained in the F:I.R. which stood corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of crime empties from the spot
Prosecution version was- supported by natural and independent witnesses including daughter of the deceased who bore stamp of injuries on her person- '-Defence, despite lengthy cross-examination had not been able to dislodge the presence of witnesses either in the village on the day of occurrence or near the place of occurrence
Mere fact that said witnesses were closely related to the deceased, by itself was not sufficient to discard their testimony as mere relationship between the witnesses and the deceased was not enough to discard their evidence unless witness had motive to falsely implicate the accused
Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony
No such serious enmity existed which could be served as a motivating factor to falsely involve accused in such like offence and why the real culprit should be spared as substitution was a rare phenomenon
Prosecution had brought sufficient evidence on record to connect accused with commission of crime and evidence had been evaluated and assessed in the right direction
Minor contradictions and omission pointed out in testimony of eye-witnesses were insignificant and did not damage the prosecution case
Accused had been rightly found guilty for the crime and judgment passed by Trial Court being unexceptionable warranted no interference of High Court. Kaura v. The State PLD 1978 BJ 39; Muhammad Muslim v. Mazhar Malik 1999 SCMR 103 and Jafar Shah v. Mian Yahya Shah 1999 SCMR 20 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Ss. 302/324
Benefit of doubt-- Entitlement
Prosecution primarily was bound to establish guilt against accused without shadow of doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence enabling the Court to draw conclusion whether or not prosecution had succeeded in establishing accusation against the accused
If Court would come to the conclusion that charges imputed against accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then accused would become entitled to be acquitted on getting benefit of doubt in prosecution case. Kamran Arif for Appellant. Jamshed Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 16th October, 2003.