Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2500 2012 SLD 2500 2012 YLR 2079
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 33-Q of 2009 and Murder Reference No. 1-Q of 2010, decided on 21st May, 2012
SHAHZADO SHAIKH, MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD AND SHEIKH AHMAD FAROOQ, JJ
Muhammad Qahir Shah for Appellant. Abdul Wasey Tareen, Prosecutor General Balochistan for the State. Nadir Ali Chalgari for the Complainant

HIMMAT ALI

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was neither specifically nominated by the complainant in the F.I.R., nor in the course of his statement recorded during the trial---No identification parade was got conducted by the Investigating Officer after the arrest of accused, who was stated to be unknown---Accused was real brother of a co-accused, who was identified by the complainant at the time of occurrence, it was highly improbable, in circumstances, that the complainant could not have identified the accused---Features of accused, who was shown as the unknown accused in the F.I.R., were not mentioned therein---Person, who was accompanying the complainant at the time of occurrence, and had seen the whole incident, had not been produced by the prosecution as witness during the trial---Another person who had transferred the dead body of the deceased from the scene of the crime to the hospital, had also not been produced as witness---Non-production of said two witnesses, who had witnessed the occurrence; and had direct knowledge of the incident had created a serious dent in the prosecution story---Motorcycle used by any accused at time of occurrence was not mentioned---Out of three accused mentioned in the F.I.R., only two were alleged to have been armed with Kalashnikov---No allegation was levelled in the F.I.R. or the statement of the prosecution witnesses that accused was armed with a pistol/revolver at the time of occurrence---Case of two versions---Version which was favourable to accused, was to be accepted---Presence of accused at time of occurrence had not been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution---Accused, in circumstances, could not have been found guilty of causing the "qatl-e-amd" of the deceased along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention---Prosecution having failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed "qatl-e-amd" of deceased in furtherance of common intention of all accused, conviction and sentence awarded to accused under S.302(b), P.P.C. by the Trial Court, was set aside---Accused was acquitted of the charge and was released,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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