2004 P Cr (PLP)
JAN ALAM‑‑‑ — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Malik Hamid Saeed and Talaat Qayum Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | JAN ALAM‑‑‑ — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) 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)‑‑‑ 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 Talaat Qayum Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (JAN ALAM‑‑‑ — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asadullah Chamkani and Imtiazur Rehman for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence ‑‑‑Time of occurrence in the case was doubtful‑‑ ‑Neither any crime‑empty was recovered from the spot nor any blood‑stained earth was taken into possession from the place of occurrence; venue of incident, therefore, was also doubtful‑‑‑Preparation of site plan on the following day of the occurrence in the absence of explanation therefor had made the prosecution version doubtful‑‑‑Nature of the weapon of offence used in the commission of crime was not disclosed by any prosecution witness‑‑‑Complainant did not appear to be present on the spot at the time of incident and the other eye‑witness had been abandoned by the prosecution for no good reasons‑‑‑Medical reports and the statements of the two doctors examined by the prosecution were contradictory inter se and in conflict with ocular version‑‑‑Specific motive set forth by the prosecution was not proved‑‑‑Prosecution case was replete with doubts and contradictions‑‑‑Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its true perspective‑‑ Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Riaz Masih alias Mitto v. The State 1995 SCMR 1730 and Saeedullah v. Shah Nazar and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1740 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑‑One reason creating reasonable doubt in the prudent mind alone is sufficient for discarding the prosecution witnesses. Riaz Masih alias Mitto v. The State 1995 SCMR 1730 and Saeedullah v. Shah Nazar and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1740 ref. Ahmad Jan, D.A.‑G. and Mazullah Barkandi for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence ‑‑‑Time of occurrence in the case was doubtful‑‑ ‑Neither any crime‑empty was recovered from the spot nor any blood‑stained earth was taken into possession from the place of occurrence; venue of incident, therefore, was also doubtful‑‑‑Preparation of site plan on the following day of the occurrence in the absence of explanation therefor had made the prosecution version doubtful‑‑‑Nature of the weapon of offence used in the commission of crime was not disclosed by any prosecution witness‑‑‑Complainant did not appear to be present on the spot at the time of incident and the other eye‑witness had been abandoned by the prosecution for no good reasons‑‑‑Medical reports and the statements of the two doctors examined by the prosecution were contradictory inter se and in conflict with ocular version‑‑‑Specific motive set forth by the prosecution was not proved‑‑‑Prosecution case was replete with doubts and contradictions‑‑‑Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its true perspective‑‑ Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Riaz Masih alias Mitto v. The State 1995 SCMR 1730 and Saeedullah v. Shah Nazar and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1740 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑‑One reason creating reasonable doubt in the prudent mind alone is sufficient for discarding the prosecution witnesses. Riaz Masih alias Mitto v. The State 1995 SCMR 1730 and Saeedullah v. Shah Nazar and others 2001 PCr.LJ 1740 ref. Asadullah Chamkani and Imtiazur Rehman for Appellant. Ahmad Jan, D.A.‑G. and Mazullah Barkandi for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 22nd May, 2003.