| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2528 2012 SLD 2528 2012 YLR 2214 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 388-J, 1396 of 2006 and MurderReference No. 96 of 2007, decided on 5th June, 2012
SH. NAJAM UL HASSAN AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ
Ghulam Dastagir for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 388-J of 2006). S.H. Shehzad Azmat for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1396 of 2006). Shahid Bashir Chaudhry, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
Criminal Appeals Nos. 388-J, 1396 of 2006 and MurderReference No. 96 of 2007, decided on 5th June, 2012
SH. NAJAM UL HASSAN AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ
Ghulam Dastagir for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 388-J of 2006). S.H. Shehzad Azmat for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1396 of 2006). Shahid Bashir Chaudhry, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
QASIM ALI and anotherVsTHE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)/34---Qatl-e-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Matter was reported to the Police after a delay of more than five hours and such delay having not been properly explained by the prosecution, same had created doubt---Out of three nominated accused, acquitted accused and one other were real brothers, while co-accused was friend of accused---Both prosecution witnesses were unanimous on the aspect that they had come to the house of deceased on receipt of complaint by her regarding maltreatment of her husband/acquitted accused---Story advanced by the prosecution through ocular account, did not appeal to reason---Plea of defence was never rebutted by the prosecution as well as by the Investigating Officer---Role ascribed to acquitted accused was more lethal and proved fatal as per role ascribed to convicted accused---Said acquitted accused was also ascribed motive part of the occurrence---On the same set of evidence Trial Court had acquitted one of the three accused persons and his acquittal had not been challenged by the prosecution, which reflected that prosecution was satisfied with the findings rendered by the Trial Court to that extent---Case of prosecution was of two versions as stance taken by both accused persons was at variance from each other---Case of accused in the case was entirely on different footing---According to the prosecution's own version said accused was empty handed and no overt act was ascribed to him---Neither anything was recovered from said accused, nor there was any corroborative documentary evidence in the shape of report of Forensic Science Laboratory---Mere presence of a person on the spot would not necessarily attract the provision of S.34, P.P.C.---Prosecution had failed to prove its case qua the accusation alleged against said accused---Trial Court, in circumstances, was not justified in passing conviction against said accused; he was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances. on of the infliction of punishment has been broaded in view of Criminal Law (Second Amendment), Ordinance, 1990 promulgated from time-to-time since 1990, in view of section 338-F, P.P.C., as in Islam…
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