| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2920 2010 SLD 2920 2010 PCRLJ 1668 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 86, 71 of 2006 and Murder Reference No. 192 of 2006, heard on 19th May, 2010. Heard on: 19th May, 2010.
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2006). Ch. Irfan Ahmad for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006). Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqi for the Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Munir, D.P.G. for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 86, 71 of 2006 and Murder Reference No. 192 of 2006, heard on 19th May, 2010. Heard on: 19th May, 2010.
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2006). Ch. Irfan Ahmad for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 71 of 2006). Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqi for the Complainant. Sh. Muhammad Munir, D.P.G. for the State.
ARSHAD MAHMOOD
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---.---Prosecution case rested merely on circumstantial evidence---.---Prosecution witness deposing about the fact of having seen the deceased alive for the last time with the accused had neither disclosed the said fact immediately after the discovery of the dead body of the deceased, nor did she reveal this fact to anybody during her visits to the house of the complainant---.---Said witness appeared to have stated so in order to save her own son and her evidence did not inspire confidence---.---Evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession made by accused had been furnished by close relatives of the complainant and the same had material contradiction---.---Evidence quo extra judicial confession being always a weak type of evidence had to be very carefully scrutinized and believed only if found trustworthy and reliable, which was not of such calibre in the present case---.---Record did not indicate that accused .had led to the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying and, thus, he had no exclusive knowledge of the place of recovery---.---Illicit relationship of both the accused inter se was not established by the record and they could not be inferred to have killed the deceased on that account---.---Joint recovery of the wire used in the offence at the instance of accused was not recognized by law---.---Accused were acquitted in circumstances. Tahir Javed v. The State 2009 SCMR 166; Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others 2006 SCMR 231; Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another 2008 SCMR 1103 and Nizam-ud-Din v. Riaz and another 2010 SCMR 457 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302(b)---.---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---.---Qatl-e-¬amd---.---Appreciation of evidence-Extrajudicial confession---.---Extra¬judicial confession is always considered as a weak piece of evidence and it should be scrutinized very carefully---.---Extra-judicial confession should not be believed unless it is adduced by trustworthy and reliable witnesses. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE:---.--- Arshad Mahmood and Mst.…
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