| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2860 2013 SLD 2860 2013 YLR 2383 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2008, heard on 13th March, 2013
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Khawaja Waseem Abbas and Imran Humayun Cheema for Appellant No. 1. Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Appellant No. 2. Arshad Mehmood, D.P.G. for the State. Asghar Ali Gill for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2008, heard on 13th March, 2013
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Khawaja Waseem Abbas and Imran Humayun Cheema for Appellant No. 1. Ch. Liaqat Ali Sindhu for Appellant No. 2. Arshad Mehmood, D.P.G. for the State. Asghar Ali Gill for the Complainant
ABDUL GHAFFAR alias KALU and anotherVsThe STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-e-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---F.I.R., having been registered after more than 2 hours of the occurrence, chances of deliberation and consultation on the part of the prosecution, could not be ruled out---House of the complainant being at a distance of about one Kilometer from the place of occurrence, his presence at the spot at the relevant time, was not free from doubt---Identification of accused persons, in the early hours of the day, was not an easy task---Prosecution witness who was not a resident of the place of occurrence, having failed to prove his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence, was declared a chance witness---Best evidence in the present case was the statements of undisputed inmates of the house where occurrence took place, but none of them was examined by the prosecution before the Trial Court---Prosecution had not been able to prove the motive---No firearm was recovered from either of accused persons---Case of acquitted co-accused was at par with accused persons---Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons through impugned by the Trial Court, was set aside, and they were acquitted from the charge by extending them benefit of doubt and were released, in circumstances. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Opinion of Police qua guilt or innocence of accused, admissibility of---Such opinion was not admissible in evidence; and the case would be decided on the basis of evidence available on record. Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed) and another v. The State 2010 SCMR 660 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Medical evidence could confirm the ocular evidence with regard to seat of injury, its duration, nature and kind of weapon used for causing such injury, but it could not connect accused with the commission of the crime, in absence of any other evidence. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Conviction could only be based upon unimpeachable evidence, and certainty of guilt, and any doubt arising in the prosecution case must be…
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