2004 P Cr (PLP)
ZUBAIR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Mian Shakirullah Jan, CJ and Dost Muhammad Khan, J |
| Parties | ZUBAIR ‑‑‑ 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: Mian Shakirullah Jan, CJ and Dost Muhammad 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) (ZUBAIR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haji Gharib Gul Kaskar for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 29th April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Accused had admitted the report made by him to the police‑‑‑Accused had further admitted that he and the deceased only were present in the house when the crime was committed‑‑‑Presence of accused on the spot at the relevant time, thus, stood' established‑‑‑Plea of accused that his deceased wife was killed by the acquitted co‑accused in his presence by firing at her with a pistol, was falsified and completely dislodged by the medical evidence on record‑‑‑Report lodged by the deceased with the police some time before the occurrence that she was fearing threat to her life at the hands of the accused and his brothers and proceedings against them under S.107/151, Cr.P.C. be taken, was not challenged, which was a legal piece of strong circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the offence‑‑ Accused after his admission that at the time of occurrence he alone was with the deceased in the house, was required to explain by giving evidence that it was not he, but somebody else who had committed the murder, but when asked under S.342, Cr.P.C. he refused to discharge the burden so shifted to him‑‑‑Motive exclusively lay with the accused to commit the crime‑‑‑Accused had tried to kill two birds with one stone by killing the deceased and sending the acquitted co‑accused to gallows‑‑‑Time spent by the accused in between 2 to 4 hours in not shifting the deceased, then injured, to hospital and not reporting the matter promptly to police, was another strong circumstance reflecting upon his conduct‑‑‑Accused had killed a poor and defenceless lady‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. Shah Wali and another v. The State PLD 1993 SC 32 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑
S. 302(b) ‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Circumstantial evidence‑‑‑‑To record conviction for a murder charge circumstantial evidence must be of a high value and degree which must be interlinked to connect the accused with the commission of the crime and incompatible with his innocence. Abdur Rauf Gandapur for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑-- ‑‑‑‑S. 302(b)‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Accused had admitted the report made by him to the police‑‑‑Accused had further admitted that he and the deceased only were present in the house when the crime was committed‑‑‑Presence of accused on the spot at the relevant time, thus, stood' established‑‑‑Plea of accused that his deceased wife was killed by the acquitted co‑accused in his presence by firing at her with a pistol, was falsified and completely dislodged by the medical evidence on record‑‑‑Report lodged by the deceased with the police some time before the occurrence that she was fearing threat to her life at the hands of the accused and his brothers and proceedings against them under S.107/151, Cr.P.C. be taken, was not challenged, which was a legal piece of strong circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the offence‑‑ Accused after his admission that at the time of occurrence he alone was with the deceased in the house, was required to explain by giving evidence that it was not he, but somebody else who had committed the murder, but when asked under S.342, Cr.P.C. he refused to discharge the burden so shifted to him‑‑‑Motive exclusively lay with the accused to commit the crime‑‑‑Accused had tried to kill two birds with one stone by killing the deceased and sending the acquitted co‑accused to gallows‑‑‑Time spent by the accused in between 2 to 4 hours in not shifting the deceased, then injured, to hospital and not reporting the matter promptly to police, was another strong circumstance reflecting upon his conduct‑‑‑Accused had killed a poor and defenceless lady‑‑‑Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances. Shah Wali and another v. The State PLD 1993 SC 32 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑
S. 302(b) ‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Circumstantial evidence‑‑‑‑To record conviction for a murder charge circumstantial evidence must be of a high value and degree which must be interlinked to connect the accused with the commission of the crime and incompatible with his innocence. Haji Gharib Gul Kaskar for Appellant. Abdur Rauf Gandapur for the State. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2003.