Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 503 2011 SLD 503 2011 PLD 92
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 990 and Murder Reference No. 629 of 2005, heard on 28th October, 2010
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, JJ
Malik Akhtar Saeed Bhatti and Hamid Ali Mirza for Appellants. Ch,audhary Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State

ABDUL REHMAN alias GAGI and 2 others

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302,324,148,149,302(b)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(g)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 544A,342,340(2)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 148---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit Qatl­-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Opinion of Police---Evidentiary value--Opinion of Police regarding guilt or innocence of accused, was not admissible in evidence. Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed) v. The State 2010 SCMR 660 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 148---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit Qatl-e­-amd---Appreciation of evidence---If evidence of the prosecution was disbelieved qua one accused, it could not be believed against the other, unless there was a strong and independent corroboration, especially when the witnesses were inimical and interested. Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6 and PLD 1975 SC 588 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)/324/148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No empty having been recovered from the spot, mere report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that two pistols recovered from co-accused were in working order, was of no avail to the prosecution---Motive set up in the F.I.R. was directly against co-accused who had been acquitted by the Trial Court and no appeal against his acquittal had been filed either by the State or the complainant party---Motive in the case, in circumstances, could not be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence against accused persons---One person was also injured in the occurrence and complainant had categorically stated that said person had received injury on his chest by an acquitted co-accused; but whole record was silent about that most important witness; and even his Medico-legal Report was not available on the file---Counsel for accused persons, in circumstances, was rightly of the view that adverse inference within the meaning of Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 should be drawn against prosecution---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused persons and ocular account was not in line with the medical evidence---Prosecution had to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt; and if any doubt would arise from the…
🔒
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