| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2943 2013 SLD 2943 2013 YLR 2800 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 717, 738 and Murder Reference No. 226of 2009, decided on 27th May, 2013. dates of hearing: 24thand 27th May, 2013
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Barrister Danyal Ejaz Chadhar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2009). Malik Ghulam Hussain Awan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2009). Mirza Aabid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Hassan Iftikhar for the Complainan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 717, 738 and Murder Reference No. 226of 2009, decided on 27th May, 2013. dates of hearing: 24thand 27th May, 2013
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Barrister Danyal Ejaz Chadhar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 717 of 2009). Malik Ghulam Hussain Awan for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 738 of 2009). Mirza Aabid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Hassan Iftikhar for the Complainan
AHMAD HASSANVsThe STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 364, 381-A, 201 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, theft of a car or other motor vehicles, causing disappearance of evidence or offence, or giving false information to screen offender and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of twenty-eight days without any satisfactory explanation in reporting the matter to the police cast doubt qua veracity of the prosecution story---Nothing was on record as to how the prosecution witnesses knew the accused persons and why they came to them for making confession---No occasion existed for the accused to make confession before the prosecution witnesses---Extra-judicial confession was considered a weak type of evidence which was not worthy of reliance---Nobody identified the dead body of the deceased before the post-mortem examination---Pointation of place of death of the deceased by the accused was of no consequence as there was no evidence of his death---Number plates and key of car recovered at the instance of the accused were not computerized and such articles could be obtained from the market---Investigation Officer had not collected any data from the mobile company that the SIM was in the name of deceased---No documentary evidence was brought on the record to prove the ownership of car allegedly in the name of deceased---Prosecution case was doubtful in nature and accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as of right---Appeals were allowed in circumstances and convictions and sentences awarded to the accused were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge while extending them benefit of doubt and murder reference was answered in negative. Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others 2006 SCMR 231; Tahir Javed v. The State 2009 SCMR 166; Ziaul Rehman v. The State 2001 SCMR 1405; Tayyab Hussain Shah v. The State 2000 SCMR 683; Sarfraz Khan v. The State and others 1996 SCMR 188 and Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 38 & 39---Extra-judicial confession---Evidentiary value---Extra-judicial confession was a weak type of…
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