| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2959 2010 SLD 2959 2010 PCRLJ 1842 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 70/J of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 845 of 2004, heard on 22nd April, 2010. Heard on: 22nd April, 2010.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHAUR, JUSTICE
Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti for Appellant. Malik Abdul Salam, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 70/J of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 845 of 2004, heard on 22nd April, 2010. Heard on: 22nd April, 2010.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHAUR, JUSTICE
Rai Muhammad Zafar Bhatti for Appellant. Malik Abdul Salam, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
MUHAMMAD MUMTAZ
VS
THE State
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302(b)---.---Qatl-e-amd---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Benefit of doubt---.---Medical evidence was not exactly in line with ocular testimony---.---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot at the crucial time was doubtful---.---Prosecution had failed to prove the motive for the occurrence---.---Abscondenee of accused was not legally proved---.---Even otherwise, abscondence of accused was not a proof of his guilt and the same, though might be relevant, could not be used for entailing conviction on capital charge alone, when ocular account was not trustworthy and was not corroborated from any other source---.---Eye-witnesses had improved their statements in court in order to meet the medical evidence---.---Recovery of rifle from the accused was inconsequential, as no crime empty had been secured by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence---.---Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances. Abdul Sattar v. The State 1974 PCr.LJ 208; Qudratullah v. Maisam and another 2005 PCr.LJ 1667; Muhammad Farooq and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1707; Shahbaz Khan Jakhrani v. Lal Beg Jakhrani and others 1984 SCMR 42 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302(b)---.---Qatl-e-amd---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Abscondenee---.---Principle---.---Mere abscondence is not a proof of guilt of an accused---.---Absondence may be a relevant fact, but it cannot be used for entailing conviction on capital charge in the absence of trustworthy ocular evidence. Abdul Sattar v. The State 1974 PCRLJ 208 and Qudratullah v. Maisam and another 2005 PCRLJ 1667 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302(b)---.---Qatl-e-amd---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Ahscondence---.---Corroborative value---.---Abseondence of accused has never been considered to be a corroborative piece of evidence. Muhammad Farooq and another v. The State 2006 SCMR 1707 ref. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302(b)---.---Qatl-e-amd---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Benefit of doubt, extension of---.---Principles---.---In a criminal case prosecution is duty…
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