| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1074 2002 SLD 1074 2002 PCRLJ 2078 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1162 and 1164 of 2000, decided on 26th August, 2002.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J
Sardar Ali Chaudhry and Sh. Ashfaq Ahmad for Appellant. Badar Munir Malik for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1162 and 1164 of 2000, decided on 26th August, 2002.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHARY, J
Sardar Ali Chaudhry and Sh. Ashfaq Ahmad for Appellant. Badar Munir Malik for the State.
MUKHTAR alias MUKHI--Appellant
VS
THE STATE --Respondent
Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979
Section: 10(4),11
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) Ss. 10(4) 11 Appreciation of evidence Trial Court had not relied upon the statements of the complainant and another prosecution witness Victim girl had also been disbelieved to the extent of commission of Zina with her Accused had been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court under S.11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 on the solitary statement of the victim High Court looked into the propriety of conviction and sentence passed against the accused Complainant had been disbelieved m the case Victim girl had remained with her family for three. days ¬Statement of victim had been recorded by the police after three days of her recovery No explanation had been given for the delayed recording of her statement by the police Chances of concocted story in connivance with the police could not be ruled out Even otherwise victim had been disbelieved by the Trial Court as regards commission of Zina with her Victim girl was not a truthful witness as she had made a contradictory statement before the Trial Court Defence witness who was a member of the monitoring team. which had recorded her earlier statement, which she had later denied, had stated before the Trial Court that she had so got recorded her earlier statement in the presence of the members of the monitoring team Statement of the victim required independent corroboration which though was available with the prosecution in the shape of three persons who had produced the victim before the complainant yet these witnesses who could be the best witnesses to prove the alleged recovery of the victim from the accused, if any, were neither produced by the prosecution at the trial nor their statements were got recorded by the police during investigation, hence the best piece of evidence to prove the charge under S.11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) had been withheld by the. prosecution Solitary statement of the victim, in the circumstances, was not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime Prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond any shadow of doubt Conviction and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492