| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2799 2013 SLD 2799 2013 YLR 2090 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1098 and Murder Reference No. 591 of2006, heard on 7th February, 2012
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Seerat Hussain Naqvi for Appellant. Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant at State expense. Chaudhry Ghulam Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Rana Habib-ur-Rehman Khan for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 1098 and Murder Reference No. 591 of2006, heard on 7th February, 2012
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Seerat Hussain Naqvi for Appellant. Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi for Appellant at State expense. Chaudhry Ghulam Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Rana Habib-ur-Rehman Khan for the Complainant
NAZIR AHMADVsThe STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Case of two versions, i.e. one put forth by prosecution in the form of ocular account furnished by the complainant and prosecution witness, and the other through the statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Delay of almost ten hours in lodging the F.I.R. had not been plausibly explained--- Chances of deliberation and consultation, in twisting the story, on the part of the complainant, could not be ruled out, in circumstances---Postmortem in the case was also conducted with the delay of almost 14 hours from the death of deceased---Prosecution story, which did not appeal to a common sense, was not believable---Prosecution witness who was not resident of village where occurrence took place, was a chance witness---Prosecution case, was in conflict with medical evidence and prosecution witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their previous statements in order to bring their case in line with medical evidence---Conflict between ocular and medical evidence had created doubt about the prosecution case---Motive as alleged by the prosecution, was not proved---Alleged recovery of Repeater .12 bore gun, was of no avail to the prosecution case because there was no report of Forensic Science Laboratory on the record to connect accused with alleged offence---Two co-accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court and said acquittal had attained finality as no appeal against said acquittal had been filed, either by the State or by the complainant which had shown that complainant was satisfied with said acquittal---Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused beyond the shadow of doubt, his conviction and sentence was set aside extending him benefit of doubt and he was released, in circumstances. Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6; Nazeer Ahmad v. Gehne Khan and others 2011 SCMR 1473; Allah Bachaya and another v. The State PLD 2008 SC 349; Muhammad Shafique Ahmad v. The State PLD 1981 SC 472; Ali Sher and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 707 and Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Asif and others 2007 SCMR 1812 rel. (b) Criminal trial---…
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