Reliance is also placed the case of Navid Akhtar and another v. Muhammad Saeed Khan and another (2004 SCMR 1469) wherein it has been held as under:-
“The defence version that during snatching the pistol from the deceased three or four fire shots went off which hit the deceased, is not appealing at all. It is strange that during the scuffle of snatching pistol, the petitioner did not receive even a scratch. It is also not believable that his licensed pistol which he produced before the police, was substituted for the real weapon of offence. The plea of self-defence taken by the petitioner appears to be un-founded as he failed to substantiate his claim by any cogent proof. Under Article 121 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984 the onus to prove the existence of circumstances bringing his case within any of the General Exceptions in the Pakistan Penal Code or within any special exceptions or proviso contained in any other pan (sic) of the same Code or in any law, was on him which he failed to discharge and in such circumstances presumption can tie drawn against him. Since the petitioner has failed to prove his defence plea by any evidence so much so that he did not even appear under section. 340(2), Cr.P.C. to give evidence on oath in disproof of the charges or allegations against him therefore, presumption can be drawn against him and such a plea cannot be sustained in absence of any proof. There is no doubt that the prosecution has no prove its case and the defence version, if reasonably possible being true can be taken into consideration but where such a plea is a mere claim and is not convincing and there is not even an iota of evidence in support of the such plea except for certain suggestions put to the P.Ws. in cross-examination which were categorically denied, such a plea cannot be maintained”.
Part of Judgement of
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI.Crl. Appeal-Against Conviction-PPC
141-17
2020 LHC 1925
0 Comments