| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2063 2013 SLD 2063 2013 YLR 15 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeals Nos.67/L, 104/L of 2009, Murder ReferenceNo.4/L of 2010 and Jail Criminal Appeal No.2/L of 2011,decision dated: 12-07-2012
SHAHZADO SHAIKH, MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD AND SHEIKH AHMAD FAROOQ, JJ
Abdul Sadiq Chaudhary for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 67/L of 2009). Mian Abdul Qayum Anjum for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 104/L of 2009). Allah Rakha for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 2/L of 2011). Sultan Haider Ali Malik for the Complai
Criminal Appeals Nos.67/L, 104/L of 2009, Murder ReferenceNo.4/L of 2010 and Jail Criminal Appeal No.2/L of 2011,decision dated: 12-07-2012
SHAHZADO SHAIKH, MUHAMMAD, JEHANGIR ARSHAD AND SHEIKH AHMAD FAROOQ, JJ
Abdul Sadiq Chaudhary for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 67/L of 2009). Mian Abdul Qayum Anjum for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 104/L of 2009). Allah Rakha for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 2/L of 2011). Sultan Haider Ali Malik for the Complai
FAISAL NAFEES and othersVsTHE STATE and another
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 377 & 34---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.12---Qatl-e-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, sodomy, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution witness who had furnished last seen evidence, had conveyed the fact seeing the deceased in the company of accused after six days and after recording of the F.I.R.---Said witness had a dubious past and had also been in the employment of Police department from where he was dismissed from service---Said witness at the time of occurrence, was in the employment of brother-in-law of the complainant and maternal uncle of the deceased, his evidence was neither confidence inspiring nor was free from doubt, but was concocted to fill in the gap---Prosecution could not succeed in proving the fact that the deceased was lastly seen by prosecution witness---Prosecution witness before whom accused person had allegedly made extra-judicial confession about their involvement in the crime, despite being paternal uncle of the deceased, did not convey alleged extra judicial confession either to the Police or to the complainant throughout the night, but he reported the same on the next day---Complainant before the Trial Court did not utter a single word about said confessional statement---Person in whose presence accused allegedly made extra-judicial confession had not been produced---All said facts had rendered the alleged extra-judicial confession highly improbable and doubtful---No reliance could be made on said extra-judicial confession for maintaining the conviction of accused person---Recovery memos with regard to allegedly recovered articles were attested by one, who was not produced, but was given up without disclosing any reason---Description of said articles was specially not mentioned in the F.I.R.---Said recovery on the basis of disclosure allegedly made by accused, being weak type of evidence could not be accepted blind-foldedly, having been made after many days---No empty had been produced, nor recovered pistol was got matched from the Forensic Science Laboratory---Offence of sodomy was not proved atβ¦
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