2004 P Cr (PLP)
SAMIULLAH alias SAMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ejaz Afzal Khan, J |
| Parties | SAMIULLAH alias SAMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
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: Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (SAMIULLAH alias SAMI‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Saifur Rehman Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 377‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence ‑‑‑Res gestae‑‑‑Occurrence was not witnessed by any of the prosecution witnesses‑‑‑Even mother and uncle of victim child, who appeared as witnesses, had not witnessed occurrence‑‑‑Whatever was stated by witnesses in the Court was based on account narrated by the victim soon after the occurrence‑‑‑Victim though appeared in witness‑box, but he did not depose about incident because Trial Court after making preliminary query to test his capacity as a witness, declared him unfit to stand the test of cross‑examination on account of his tender age‑‑‑Court, in circumstances was left only with evidence of res gestae‑‑‑Circumstances, facts and declarations which spontaneously grow out of main fact and serve to illustrate its character being res gestae, were admissible provided they were so contemporaneous with main fact as to exclude the possibility of deliberation and fabrication‑ ‑‑Such declarations being part of res gestae, were admissible in evidence even though declarant was incompetent to testify or was not produced in the Court altogether‑‑‑Spontaneous declaration of a child too young to be permitted to testify, could be admissible as part of res gestae‑‑‑Such un-sworn declaration was to be treated at par with sworn declaration‑‑‑Conviction on the basis of res gestae alone under no circumstances, could be recorded without corroboration‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court, were set aside and he was set free. Muhammad Aslam Shah v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 704; Sameeullah Khan v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 769; Muhammad Din and 2 others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 238; Abdullah Shah v. The State 1968 SCMR 852; Umar v. The State 1969 SCMR 600; Swal Das v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 778; Faqir Muhammad v. The State PLD 1971 Lah. 929 and Muhammad Sugal Mamasan Rer Alalah v. The King AIR (33) 1946 PC 3 ref. Shaukat Hayat Khan. D.A.‑G. for the State. Ghazanfar Abbas Sandala for the Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 377‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence ‑‑‑Res gestae‑‑‑Occurrence was not witnessed by any of the prosecution witnesses‑‑‑Even mother and uncle of victim child, who appeared as witnesses, had not witnessed occurrence‑‑‑Whatever was stated by witnesses in the Court was based on account narrated by the victim soon after the occurrence‑‑‑Victim though appeared in witness‑box, but he did not depose about incident because Trial Court after making preliminary query to test his capacity as a witness, declared him unfit to stand the test of cross‑examination on account of his tender age‑‑‑Court, in circumstances was left only with evidence of res gestae‑‑‑Circumstances, facts and declarations which spontaneously grow out of main fact and serve to illustrate its character being res gestae, were admissible provided they were so contemporaneous with main fact as to exclude the possibility of deliberation and fabrication‑ ‑‑Such declarations being part of res gestae, were admissible in evidence even though declarant was incompetent to testify or was not produced in the Court altogether‑‑‑Spontaneous declaration of a child too young to be permitted to testify, could be admissible as part of res gestae‑‑‑Such un-sworn declaration was to be treated at par with sworn declaration‑‑‑Conviction on the basis of res gestae alone under no circumstances, could be recorded without corroboration‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court, were set aside and he was set free. Muhammad Aslam Shah v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 704; Sameeullah Khan v. State 2000 PCr.LJ 769; Muhammad Din and 2 others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 238; Abdullah Shah v. The State 1968 SCMR 852; Umar v. The State 1969 SCMR 600; Swal Das v. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 778; Faqir Muhammad v. The State PLD 1971 Lah. 929 and Muhammad Sugal Mamasan Rer Alalah v. The King AIR (33) 1946 PC 3 ref. Saifur Rehman Khan for Appellant. Shaukat Hayat Khan. D.A.‑G. for the State. Ghazanfar Abbas Sandala for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 10th October, 2003.