Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 3467 2009 SLD 3467 2009 PCRLJ 1011
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No.319 of 2001 and Murder Reference No.79 of 2002, heard on 25th November, 2008.Date of hearing: 25th November, 2008.
Before M.A. Zafar and Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, JJ
Sardar Muhammad Ishaque Khan for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Tariq, Addl. P.-G. for the State.

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and 2 others----Appellants

VS

THE STATE----Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular testimony was contrary to medical evidence---Eye-witnesses were not only closely related to the deceased, but admittedly they had also enmity with the accused party---Recovery of fire-arm from the accused without any report of Forensic Science Laboratory was of no worth---Each and every word coming from the mouth of an injured witness could not universally be taken as a true account of the occurrence---Accused had been declared innocent during all the investigations---Although police opinion was not binding on the Court, yet at the same time impact of the same could not be altogether thrown away---Ocular account was without independent corroboration-Accused were acquitted in circumstances. Altaf Hussain v. The State PLD 2000 Lah. 216 and Muhammad Naeem alias Gogi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1607 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Testimony of injured witness---Principles and guidelines stated. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Police opinion---Opinion expressed by police although is no proof of innocence or guilt of accused, yet the factum of impact of such an opinion cannot be thrown away to winds altogether. Muhammad Naeem alias Gogi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1607 ref. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Accused while admitting the occurrence had taken a specific plea of having acted in self-defence when attacked by the complainant party---None of the injuries suffered by accused was with any fire-arm, rather the same were the result of a blunt weapon, which had been duly explained by complainant in the F.I.R.---Defence plea taken by accused was not borne out from the evidence on record rather prosecution evidence was more convincing, as it was quite natural for the complainant that on seeing his two sons having been fired at and done to death by the accused, he would have caused injuries to accused with the gun snatched from the accused, which had already stood broken during the process of snatching---Ocular testimony was corroborated by medical evidence as…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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