| Case ID |
e05c218a-3506-4d04-8cf5-3f18e31376d5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 421-P of 2012 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 10, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with contradictions and lacked credible evidence to sustain a conviction. The confessional statement of the accused was deemed unreliable due to the absence of corroborative evidence. The inconsistencies in witness testimonies regarding the recovery of the deceased's body, the timeline of events, and the lack of forensic evidence led the court to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges. |
| Summary |
In the case of 'Criminal Appeal No. 421-P of 2012', the Peshawar High Court dealt with a serious criminal matter involving charges of murder and kidnapping for ransom under the Penal Code. The court scrutinized the evidence presented by the prosecution, which was found to be inconsistent and unconvincing. Key points included the lack of eyewitness accounts of the crime, doubts surrounding the confession of the accused, and the absence of physical evidence linking the accused to the crime scene. The judges emphasized the principle that no one should be convicted without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The ruling highlighted the importance of reliable evidence in criminal proceedings, reinforcing the notion that the benefit of doubt must always favor the accused, a cornerstone of the justice system. This case serves as a critical reminder of the standards required for criminal convictions and the necessity for thorough and credible evidence. Keywords: criminal appeal, murder case, Peshawar High Court, acquittal, benefit of doubt, evidence evaluation. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ABDUL LATIF KHAN,
IKRAMULLAH KHAN
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Lal Badshah,
Arshad Ahmad Khan DAG,
Ishtiaq Ibrahim
|
| Petitioners |
IQBAL
|
| Respondents |
The STATE
|
| Citations |
2015 SLD 2328,
2015 PCRLJ 735
|
| Other Citations |
The State v. Kalab Ali and 2 others 2010 GBLR 256,
Asif Zaheer and another v. State 2010 YLR 3191,
Patoo and another v. The State 2012 MLD 1358,
Mah Gul v. State 2009 SCMR 4,
Muhaiyimad Jamail v. The State 2010 MLD 1586
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
302,
365-A,
201,
109,
34,
164
|