| Case ID |
0f9886dc-478f-41b4-819a-ca1b38c96686 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 279-P and Murder Reference No. |
| Decision Date |
Mar 22, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
Mar 22, 2022 |
| Decision |
The appeal against the conviction of the accused was allowed due to significant discrepancies in the evidence presented during the trial. The trial court failed to properly assess the credibility of witnesses, particularly the complainant, whose presence at the crime scene was deemed dubious. It was found that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the ocular account of the complainant, which lacked corroborative evidence. The absence of reliable eyewitnesses and the failure to substantiate the motives behind the alleged crime led to the conclusion that the accused was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the principle of benefit of the doubt, stating that any uncertainties must favor the accused and that the evidentiary standards required for a conviction were not met. |
| Summary |
This case involves a criminal appeal concerning the murder of the complainant's son, where the accused was charged under Section 302(b) of the Penal Code (XLV of 1860). The case highlights key legal principles regarding the appreciation of evidence, the credibility of eyewitnesses, and the necessity for corroborative proof in criminal trials. The decision underscores the fundamental legal tenet that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any ambiguity in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the accused. The court critically evaluated the procedural aspects of the investigation, including the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, and found that the trial court had failed to appreciate the evidence correctly, leading to an erroneous conviction. The ruling reinforces the importance of rigorous standards in criminal law and the protection of individual rights against wrongful convictions. Key terms include 'criminal appeal', 'murder reference', 'evidence appreciation', 'eyewitness credibility', and 'benefit of the doubt'. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Rooh Ul Amin Khan,
Ishtiaq Ibrahim
|
| Lawyers |
Not available
|
| Petitioners |
Haris
|
| Respondents |
another,
Zahoor Khan
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 464,
2023 PCRLJ 174
|
| Other Citations |
Dr. Israr ul Haq v. Muhammad Fayyaz and another 2007 SCMR 1427,
Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaisar Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142,
Mst. Rukhsana Begum and others v. Sajjad and others 2017 SCMR 596,
Ghulam Akbar and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 1064,
Jehangir v. Nazar Farid and another 2002 SCMR 1986,
Muhammad Younus Khan v. The State 1992 SCMR 545,
Attaullah and others v. The State PLD 1990 Pesh. 10,
Noor Muhammad v. The State and another 2010 SCMR 97,
Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another 2008 SCMR 1103,
Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State 2009 SCMR 1410,
Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345,
Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230,
Faryad Ali’s case 2008 SCMR 1086
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
|
| Sections |
302(b)
|