1991 PLP 1685 (SCMR)
STATE through Advocate-General, N: W.F.P., Peshawar — Appellant Versus ALI REHMAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1685 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ----S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Evidence, appraisal of-- Leave to appeal was granted to re-appraise evidence in the case: --Evidence. |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ |
| Parties | STATE through Advocate-General, N: W.F.P., Peshawar — Appellant Versus ALI REHMAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1685 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ----S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Evidence, appraisal of-- Leave to appeal was granted to re-appraise evidence in the case: --Evidence. bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman, Ali Hussain Qazilbash, and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1685 (SCMR) (STATE through Advocate-General, N: W.F.P., Peshawar — Appellant Versus ALI REHMAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate, Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st May, 1991.
- STATE through Advocate‑General, N: W.F.P., Peshawar‑‑‑Appellant
- Advocate‑General, N. W.F.P. with Nur Ahmed Khan for the State.
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate, Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 28-10-1984 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar passed in CrA. No.253 of 1984).
S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Evidence, appraisal of-- Leave to appeal was granted to re-appraise evidence in the case: --[Evidence].
S.302
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Evidence, appraisal of-- Solitary eye-witness had resiled
Retracted confession had rightly been discarded by Courts below having not received any corroboration from any other independent source
Number of injuries on person of deceased showed that these in all probability were inflicted by more than one person
Condition of stomach of deceased as per medico-legal report, created doubts about time of occurrence
Accused was, thus rightly acquitted. Advocate-General, N. W.F.P. with Nur Ahmed Khan for the State. JUDGMENT ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J: --This appeal by the State arises from the judgment and order of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court dated 28-10-1984.
2. Ali Rehman respondent faced his trial for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. He was acquitted of the charge on 20-2-1980. The appeal of the State against the order of acquittal was also dismissed by the High Court on 28-10-1984.
3. The occurrence in this case was reported to have taken place on 12-7-1979 at 11-00 p.m. on the road leading to the Forest College, Peshawar. The report of the occurrence was made by Muhammad Yaqub, cousin of the deceased and it was recorded by late Abdul Shakoor S.H.O. Ali Rehman respondent was arrested on 15-7-1979 by the local police of Police Station Timargara, District Dir. The investigation in this case was partly conducted by Abdul Shakoor Khan when he was alive, who after recording the report went to the spot, found the dead body of the deceased, prepared his injury sheet and inquest report and despatched the same to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He also prepared site plan at the instance of Riaz P.W. and from the spot he took blood-stained earth Ex.P.C./1 and a pair of chapli of the deceased vide memo Ex.P.C/2. An electric bulb Ex.P/5 of 200-Watt was also taken over from the electric pole vide memo. Ex.P.C/3. He also took over clothes of the deceased. The investigation was then taken over by Abdul Hafi P.W-11 who obtained warrant and proclamation against the respondent under section 204 and section 87, Cr.P.C. because the respondent was not available. The respondent had been arrested by Police Station Timargara under section 54, Cr.P.C. on 15-7-1979 and his custody was then taken over by Abdul Hafi on 14-10-1979. The respondent was then produced before the Magistrate for recording his confessional statement on 18-10-1979.
4. After the completion of investigation the respondent was put to trial where the prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 12 witnesses including Dr. Liaquat Ali who on examining the dead body had found as many as 6 stab wounds of various dimensions on various parts of the body of the deceased, 3 incised wounds of various dimension on left and right shoulders and on right Ist, 2nd and 3rd finger of the deceased 2 scratch marks were also found on the body of the deceased. On internal examination the stomach of the deceased was found healthy and empty. There was only one eye-witness who at the trial had resiled from his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., was declared hostile and allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The respondent in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the charge levelled against him. He denied to have made any confessional statement and also denied to have absconded. He further deposed that he was innocent and that he was mentally deranged and had remained a patient of Schizophrenia and also that he was incapable to remember his acts which he commits under the fits. The trial concluded in his acquittal and the appeal of the State also failed.
5. Leave in this case was granted to re-appraise the evidence in this case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the Courts below and the material available on the record. We hardly find any merit in this appeal in that the only witness who had allegedly seen the occurrence had resiled. The other piece of evidence pressed against the respondent was his retraction of confessional statement which has rightly been discarded by the Courts below because it did not receive any corroboration from any other independent source. Besides the above, the number of injuries on the person of deceased shows that these in all probability were inflicted by more than one person. Still further, the condition of the stomach, as per the medico-legal report, creates doubts about the time of occurrence. Since the stomach of the deceased was empty, in all probability, the deceased was done to death either very late at night or in the early hours of the morning.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. The respondent shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. M.A.K./S-624/S Appeal dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J: ‑‑This appeal by the State arises from the judgment and order of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court dated 28‑10‑1984.
2. Ali Rehman respondent faced his trial for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar. He was acquitted of the charge on 20‑2‑1980. The appeal of the State against the order of acquittal was also dismissed by the High Court on 28‑10‑1984.
3. The occurrence in this case was reported to have taken place on 12‑7‑1979 at 11‑00 p.m. on the road leading to the Forest College, Peshawar. The report of the occurrence was made by Muhammad Yaqub, cousin of the deceased and it was recorded by late Abdul Shakoor S.H.O. Ali Rehman respondent was arrested on 15‑7‑1979 by the local police of Police Station Timargara, District Dir. The investigation in this case was partly conducted by Abdul Shakoor Khan when he was alive, who after recording the report went to the spot, found the dead body of the deceased, prepared his injury sheet and inquest report and despatched the same to the mortuary for post‑mortem examination. He also prepared site plan at the instance of Riaz P.W. and from the spot he took blood‑stained earth Ex.P.C./1 and a pair of chapli of the deceased vide memo Ex.P.C/2. An electric bulb Ex.P/5 of 200‑Watt was also taken over from the electric pole vide memo. Ex.P.C/3. He also took over clothes of the deceased. The investigation was then taken over by Abdul Hafi P.W‑11 who obtained warrant and proclamation against the respondent under section 204 and section 87, Cr.P.C. because the respondent was not available. The respondent had been arrested by Police Station Timargara under section 54, Cr.P.C. on 15‑7‑1979 and his custody was then taken over by Abdul Hafi on 14‑10‑1979. The respondent was then produced before the Magistrate for recording his confessional statement on 18‑10‑1979.
4. After the completion of investigation the respondent was put to trial where the prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 12 witnesses including Dr. Liaquat Ali who on examining the dead body had found as many as 6 stab wounds of various dimensions on various parts of the body of the deceased, 3 incised wounds of various dimension on left and right shoulders and on right Ist, 2nd and 3rd finger of the deceased 2 scratch marks were also found on the body of the deceased. On internal examination the stomach of the deceased was found healthy and empty. There was only one eye‑witness who at the trial had resiled from his statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C., was declared hostile and allowed to be cross‑examined by the prosecution. The respondent in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the charge levelled against him. He denied to have made any confessional statement and also denied to have absconded. He further deposed that he was innocent and that he was mentally deranged and had remained a patient of Schizophrenia and also that he was incapable to remember his acts which he commits under the fits. The trial concluded in his acquittal and the appeal of the State also failed.
5. Leave in this case was granted to re‑appraise the evidence in this case.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment of the Courts below and the material available on the record. We hardly find any merit in this appeal in that the only witness who had allegedly seen the occurrence had resiled. The other piece of evidence pressed against the respondent was his retraction of confessional statement which has rightly been discarded by the Courts below because it did not receive any corroboration from any other independent source. Besides the above, the number of injuries on the person of deceased shows that these in all probability were inflicted by more than one person. Still further, the condition of the stomach, as per the medico‑legal report, creates doubts about the time of occurrence. Since the stomach of the deceased was empty, in all probability, the deceased was done to death either very late at night or in the early hours of the morning.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. The respondent shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. M.A.K./S‑624/S Appeal dismissed.