P L D 1977 Peshawar 1 (PLP)
AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 3 OTHERS‑Accused‑Appellants Versus The STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1977 Peshawar 1 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ Murder‑case‑Witness‑Mere relationship of witnesses with com plainant party without evidence of previous enmity between parties Held, does not render evidence of such witnesses unworthy of evidence.‑Witness. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Ghani Khan Khattak and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 3 OTHERS‑Accused‑Appellants Versus The STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1977 Peshawar 1 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1977 Peshawar 1 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ Murder‑case‑Witness‑Mere relationship of witnesses with com plainant party without evidence of previous enmity between parties Held, does not render evidence of such witnesses unworthy of evidence.‑Witness. bench comprising: Abdul Ghani Khan Khattak and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1977 Peshawar 1 (PLP) (AMIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 3 OTHERS‑Accused‑Appellants Versus The STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Anwar assisted by S. Masoom Shah for Appellants.
- Dates of hearing: 6th and 7th October 1976.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal trial‑ ‑‑ [Murder‑case]‑Witness‑Mere relationship of witnesses with com plainant party without evidence of previous enmity between parties Held, does not render evidence of such witnesses unworthy of evidence.‑[Witness]. (b) Criminal trial‑ [Murder‑case]‑Recovery‑Crime weapons and shells recovered from accused or from place of occurrence‑Held: Investigating Agency should not delay despatch of such incriminating articles to Ballistic Expert.‑[Recovery]. The Investigating Agency should not delay the despatch of crime weapons and shells to the Ballistic Expert and there should be evi dence on the record to show the despatch number and the number of seal under which these incriminating articles are sent to the S. S. P. i.e. District Mall Khana and there should also be some evidence to establish their safe custody free from any tampering and onward despatch to the Ballistic Expert from the District Mall Khana which is under the control of the S. P. of the District. (c) Evidence Act (I of 1872) ‑‑‑ S. 32 ‑Dying declaration ‑Truthfulness and genuineness‑Test.‑ [Dying declaration]. Before accepting the dying declaration as true and genuine, the follow ing test should be applied :‑ (i) That intrinsically the dying declaration rings true. (ii) That each case must be determined on its own facts, keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying man had made the statement. (iii) That the Court has to keep in view the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation and with particular refer ence to the time and place of occurrence. (iv) That the statement has been consistent with other evidence and has been made at the earliest opportunity and wag not tile result of tutoring by interested parties. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ S. 162‑Statement made to Police not amounting to confession but exculpatory‑Preliminary narration by accused referring to motive and opportunity leading to crime‑Held: Admissible in evidence‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 25 8L 26.‑[Evidence]. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑‑ S. 302‑Murder‑Ocular testimony worthy of reliance and dying declaration intrinsically genuine and true‑Accused, held, participated in commission of offence resulting in death of three persons‑Con viction and sentence of death upheld. Mufti Muhammad Idris, A.‑G. assisted by Nazir Hussain for the Slate.
Judgment & Decree
ABLLL GHAAI KHAN KHATTAK, J.
I entirely agree with my learned brother Mian Burhanuddin, J. in the treatment of evidence and the conclusion drawn from it in upholding the judgment of the learned trial Court. However, I would like to add a few lines on the circumstantial aspect of the case.
2. The first circumstance speaking for the truth of the prosecution case is that Haq Nawaz does not claim to have seen the incident from its beginning to. the end of it. He repaired to the scene of occurrence after hearing a fire shot emanating from the spot, where he observed Khaliqdad and Ghulam Sarwar lying injured and Ashraf in wounded condition crying for help, while Mst. Bibi weeping by the side of her son Ghulam Sarwar. This statement has a ring of truth quite in accord with the conduct of a passer by narrating what he has actually seen. He reached the venue of occurrence when the criminal transaction was at its fag end and concluded by the act of Amir Hussain Shah firing from a close range at Ghulam Sarwar in his presence His ocular testimony of the fire-shot of Amir Hussain is amply supported by the charring on the dead body of Ghulam Sarwar deceased. He finally observed Faqir Hussain Shah returning from the direction where Qadirdad was seen by him lying wounded. He does not fringe his ocular account with having seen Faqir Hussain firing at Qadirdad. He hastens to inform the Levy Police at Kiri Khaisore yet he does not maintain to have witnessed the whole occurrence, which is the reason for incomplete informa tion having been passed on by the levy police to the police station.
3. The evidence is that Faqir Hussain picked up the gun that fell from Sibtul Hassan at point 5 and from there he fired at Qadirdad when the latter was at point, 6, who ultimately fell at point
7. The trail of blood from points 6 to 7 and the presence of cartridges at points 8 and 9 and of card-board discs and wad along the line of the detour conclusively proves the ocular testimony of the witnesses and deponent. The broken hedge at points 'a' and 'b' further points in the direction of the truth of the narration of this part of occurrence and thus the return of Faqir Hussain from the vanquished adversary is witnessed by Haq Nawaz.
4. The synchronism of the duration within 24 hours of injuries on no less than three appellants, namely Ashiq Hussain, Sibtul Hassan and Faqir Hussain cannot escape notice. Whatever explanation for it is offered by them, at the trial the most unusual thing is its being characterised as fabricated. The conclusion that these are the stamps of their participation in the criminal transaction is not wholly unfounded. The cumulative effect of these facts read alongwith the direct evidence dovetail in the direction of their being concerned in the'' perpetration of crime. It cannot be convincingly suggested that any one of the appellants is falsely roped in, for, the respective role of each of the offender is fully described in the ocular account corroborated by the indirect evidence the veracity whereof can hardly be doubted. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.