2004 P Cr (PLP)
KAMAL HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KAMAL HUSSAIN — 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: 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) (KAMAL HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus THE STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 302(b)-Appreciation of evidence
Presence of eve-witnesses on the spot at the crucial moments being highly doubtful and their testimony having been belied by the medical evidence, the same was neither credible nor reliable
Injured witnesses were withheld by the prosecution whose evidence was essential rather indispensable in view of the inconsistent testimony of the partisan evidence of prosecution witnesses and their non-production had led to adverse inference against the case of prosecution
Bullet recovered from the dead body of the deceased was not sent to Serologist to ascertain whether it was stained with human blood of the same group and it, thus, was not established that it was in fact recovered from the dead body of the deceased
Said bullet was also dispatched to the Ballistic Expert twice with two different seals
Positive report of the Ballistic Expert, therefore, did not improve the prosecution case that the said bullet was fired from the Kalashnikov recovered from the accused
Accused was acquitted in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeals Nos.176, 174 of 1999 and Criminal Revision No.Nil, decided on 4th December, 2003.
S. 302(b)-Appreciation of evidence
Presence of eve-witnesses on the spot at the crucial moments being highly doubtful and their testimony having been belied by the medical evidence, the same was neither credible nor reliable
Injured witnesses were withheld by the prosecution whose evidence was essential rather indispensable in view of the inconsistent testimony of the partisan evidence of prosecution witnesses and their non-production had led to adverse inference against the case of prosecution
Bullet recovered from the dead body of the deceased was not sent to Serologist to ascertain whether it was stained with human blood of the same group and it, thus, was not established that it was in fact recovered from the dead body of the deceased
Said bullet was also dispatched to the Ballistic Expert twice with two different seals
Positive report of the Ballistic Expert, therefore, did not improve the prosecution case that the said bullet was fired from the Kalashnikov recovered from the accused
Accused was acquitted in circumstances. Umar Hayat v. The State PLD 1995 SC 526; Abdul Khaliq v. The State 1996 SC 1553; Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain alias Mithu and others 1994 SCMR 1928; Qadir Bakhsh v. The State PLD 2002 Quetta 97; Abdul Ghafoor v. The State 2000 SCMR 919; Ghaus Muhammad alias Ghausia and another v. The State 1979 SCMR 579; Ghulamullah and another v. The State 1996 SCMR 1887; Mardan Ali v. Gulilstan and others 1980 SCMR 889; Saindad and others v. The State 1972 SCMR 74 and Saeedullah Khan v. The State 1986 SCMR 1027 ref. Mirza Abdullah Jan and Mujtaba Ali Hamdani for Appellant. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Asadullah Khan Chamkani and Ishtiaq Ibrahim for the Complainant. Malik Ahmad Jan, D.A.-G for the State. Dates of hearing; 2nd and 4th December, 2003.