2004 P Cr (PLP)
DARYA KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shah Jehan Khan and Qazi Ehsanullah Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | DARYA KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: 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: Shah Jehan Khan and Qazi Ehsanullah 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) (DARYA KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yaqub Khan Marwat for appellant.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 324‑‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), S.7‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Statements of eye‑witnesses were materially contradictory‑‑‑Injured prosecution witness had not charged any person for firing‑‑‑No incriminating article had been recovered from spot‑‑‑Accused had been arrested from his house‑‑‑Statement of other prosecution witnesses were inconsistent to each other‑‑‑Case of prosecution was full of contradictions and discrepancies creating doubts, benefit of which would go to accused‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge in circumstances. Shaukat Hayat Khan, D.A.‑G. for the State. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2003, decided on 8th December, 2003. ‑‑‑‑S. 324‑‑‑Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act (XV of 1975), S.7‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Statements of eye‑witnesses were materially contradictory‑‑‑Injured prosecution witness had not charged any person for firing‑‑‑No incriminating article had been recovered from spot‑‑‑Accused had been arrested from his house‑‑‑Statement of other prosecution witnesses were inconsistent to each other‑‑‑Case of prosecution was full of contradictions and discrepancies creating doubts, benefit of which would go to accused‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge in circumstances. Muhammad Yaqub Khan Marwat for appellant. Shaukat Hayat Khan, D.A.‑G. for the State. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 in person. Date of hearing: 8th December, 2003.