| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2456 2014 SLD 2456 2014 PCRLJ 1477 |
Federal Shariat Court
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 26/K, Criminal Appeal No. 27/K of2010 and Murder Reference No. 1/K of 2011, decided on 27thFebruary, 2014. DATE of hearing: 29th January, 2014
DR. AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, C.J., ALLAMA DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, JJ
Muhammad Zeeshan Adhi for Appellants (in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 26/K of 2010). Muhammad Ghulamullah Chang for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 27/K of 2010). Abrar Ali Khichi, Assistant Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State. Complainant in person
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 26/K, Criminal Appeal No. 27/K of2010 and Murder Reference No. 1/K of 2011, decided on 27thFebruary, 2014. DATE of hearing: 29th January, 2014
DR. AGHA RAFIQ AHMED KHAN, C.J., ALLAMA DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, JJ
Muhammad Zeeshan Adhi for Appellants (in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 26/K of 2010). Muhammad Ghulamullah Chang for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 27/K of 2010). Abrar Ali Khichi, Assistant Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State. Complainant in person
MUHAMMAD HASSAN alias SHARIF and othersVsThe STATE and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------S. 396---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Dacoity with murder, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inordinate delay of 5 days in lodging F.I.R. could not be taken lightly as it cast serious doubts on the case of prosecution---Delay in lodging the F.I.R. could only be condoned when such delay had been adequately explained---Casual attitude and inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. without any plausible explanation, had created serious doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution story---Prosecution had not examined the only eye-witness regarding causing firearm injuries to the deceased---No doubt, it was the prerogative of the prosecution to examine the witness of its choice, but omission to examine the only eye-witness, that too, in a case where murder of an innocent person had taken place, had weakened the whole prosecution case---Neighbours, who entered the house of complainant just after the incident, and also broken the locks of the house, had not been examined by the prosecution---Such omission on the part of prosecution was fatal to the case of prosecution---Material contradictions in the ocular evidence of the complainant and his wife, and their inconsistent versions, had created serious doubt about their veracity and truthfulness---No description of accused persons was given in the F.I.R., nor it was mentioned that accused would be identified upon seeing---When accused were with muffled faces at the time of occurrence, and no description of them was given in the F.I.R., then how complainant and other witnesses could claim that they had identified accused person during identification parade---Identification parade was delayed for 12 days without any explanation---Role of accused having not been described by the witnesses at the time of identification parade, same would be considered as an inherent defect, and identification parade would lose its value and same could not be relied upon---Failure of Police to take private mashirs, was clear violation of S.103, Cr.P.C.---There being no recovery of crime weapon, two empty cartridges produced by the…
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