Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2489 2012 SLD 2489 2012 YLR 2013
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 3/P, Jail Criminal Appeals Nos. 12/I and29/I of 2010, decided on 9th May, 2012
AGHA RAFIQ AHMAD KHAN C.J. AND DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Amin Khattak Lachi and Khalid Khan for Appellants. Alamgir Khan Durani, Deputy Advocate General, KPK for the State

JAVAID and 2 othersVsTHE STATE and another

Law:

Section:

Offences Against Property (En-forcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)--- ----S. 17(4)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Haraabah, in the course of which murder is committed, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No one was nominated by the complainant in the Murasla and the occurrence was unwitnessed---Case was of circumstantial evidence only---Evidence of prosecution witnesses did not provide complete links of the chain and each testimony of those witnesses stopped at a certain point and did not advance the case to the neck of accused, as was required in all cases based on circumstantial evidence---Evidence seemed to be totally based on conjectures and surmises---Place of occurrence where murder had taken place was more than a mile away from the house of the prosecution witnesses---None of the prosecution witnesses had referred to any evidence that could provide basis or any link for their opinion---Nothing was on record to show that deceased before his death had any weapon which was used during struggle between him and unknown accused---Deceased himself had mentioned nothing about any such scuffle---Prosecution witness who was son of the deceased had not disclosed any source of evidence which had made him to believe that accused had committed murder of his father---Said prosecution witness had also admitted that he was not present with his father at the time he was driving the taxi in question---Accused persons belonged to a far-flung area and none of the prosecution witnesses knew their names---No proper identification parade was conducted by the prosecution despite the application was moved for that purpose---Such was the position of recording of confessional statement when accused refused to make any confession---Report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory, was doubtful---Pistol was recovered from accused 10 days after recovery of two empties from the place of occurrence but both were sent together to Forensic Science Laboratory after 10 to 14 days respectively--- Experienced Investigating Officer was supposed to send empties separately as soon as those were recovered, but same was not done…
🔒
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