| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2423 2013 SLD 2423 2013 YLR 570 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 240 and Murder Reference No. 496 of2007, heard on 9th February, 2011
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH AND SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, JJ
Raja Muhammad Bashir for Appellant. Haider Mehmood Mirza for the Complainant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed Khan, D.P.G. for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 240 and Murder Reference No. 496 of2007, heard on 9th February, 2011
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH AND SAGHEER AHMAD QADRI, JJ
Raja Muhammad Bashir for Appellant. Haider Mehmood Mirza for the Complainant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed Khan, D.P.G. for the State
MUHAMMAD IMRANVsThe STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b)/34/109---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account was brought on record by prosecution witnesses who were closely related to the deceased as well as the complainant---Presence of said witnesses was doubtful at the alleged place of occurrence---Place of occurrence was situated on the road side which was at a long distance from the place of residence of the complainant and the deceased---Incident was an unwitnessed occurrence---Statement of complainant and prosecution witness that even after receiving four fire shots, the deceased was capable of standing, was contradicted by the medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution itself---Witnesses being not present at the spot, occurrence might have taken place much before the time as suggested by the prosecution---Very strong corroborative evidence was required for the statements of two witnesses who were related, interested and chance witnesses---Whole of the prosecution version was built up after dead body was found---Prosecu-tion being not able to prove the charge against accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt, conviction passed by the Trial Court against accused, was not sustainable in the eyes of law---Same was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge and was directed to be released, in circumstances. Muhammad Luqman v. The State PLD 1970 SC 10 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Appreciation of evidence---When two interpretations could be drawn out of one preposition, one favouring the accused was to be adopted. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Motive---Motive, if alleged, have to be proved otherwise an adverse inference could be drawn---Even otherwise, motive also was taken as double edged weapon as it cut either side. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Benefit of doubt---Probabilities howsoever of strong character could not take the place of proof, which was required to bring home guilt of accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---One dent in the prosecution story having substance was sufficient to create a doubt in the prosecution version; and its benefit could be extended in favour of accused for safe…
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