Find a Lawyer

SHAHID ALIAS PUNJABI versus THE STATE

r Article 133 (2) ross Cross-Examination - Object truth for cross-examination - Cross examination was a great legal engine by which the opportunity to cross a mediator by law must be real, fair and reasonable. Not an empty ritual, but a valuable right and the best way to detect the truth criminal The right to cross-examine in criminal cases was a valuable right of the accused - a cross-examination was a weapon intended to test the truth of this statement. Can be a result. Witness, [Page 721] b

PLD 2017 Sindh 717

Before Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, J

SHAHID alias PUNJABI—Appellant

versus

THE STATE—Respondent

Criminal Jail Appeal No.69 of 2011, decided on 24th May, 2017.

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)—

—S. 342—Examination of accused—Scope—Evidence not put to accused at the time of recording his statement under S. 342 Cr. P. Co could not be considered against him. [p. 721] A

(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)—

—Art. 133(2)—Cross-examination—Object—Cross-examination was the great legal engine invented for the discovery of truth—Opportunity to cross-examine contemplated by the law must be real, fair and reasonable—Cross-examination was not an empty fÓrm;ality, but a valuable right and best method for ascertaining the truth—Right of cross-examination in criminal cases was a valuable right of the accused—Cross-examination was a weapon which could be a wield for the purpose of testing the veracity of the statement made by the witness, [p. 721] B

(c) Criminal trial—

—Benefit of doubt—Principle—Prosecution was duty bound to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt—If any single or slightest doubt was created, benefit would go to the accused and would be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case. [p. 721] C

(d) Criminal trial—

*

—Benefit of doubt—Principle—Benefit of doubt would go to the accused, regardless of the fact whether he had taken such plea or not. ]p. 721] D

Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345; Muhammad Akram’s case 2009 SCMR 230 and Faryad Ali's case 2008 SCMR 1086 rel.

(e) Penal Code (XLV of I860)—

—j02—Qatl-i-amd—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—

Accused-appellant was charged for the murder of maternal uncle of the complainant—Material on record showed that the version of prosecution was without corroboration, which adversely affected the credibility of prosecution witnesses' testimony—Circumstances

established that the deposition of prosecution witnesses were totally inconsistent—Circumstances of the case had created serious doubts in the prosecution case, which would go to the roots of the prosecution case—Benefit of such doubt would resolve in favour of accused— Accused appellant was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. [p. 722] E & F

(f) Criminal trial—

—Conviction—Principle—’Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt—Any doubt arising in the prosecution case, must be resolved in favour of accused, [p. 722] G

Zakir Hussain Leghari for Appellant.

Rahat Ehsan, D.P.G.Sindh for the State.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2017.

Pakistan, top advocate family court from Sudhnoti lawyer