Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302/34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 417

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302/34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qatl-e-amd, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant in her cross-exami-nation had stated that co-accused was not known to her; that she was not charging the co-accused and that, if he was acquitted of the charge, she would have no objection---Accused was charged for effective firing at the deceased, while co-accused had not been ascribed any overt act and only his presence on the spot had been shown---Appeal against acquittal to the extent of co-accused deserved outright dismissal, in circumstances---Unexplained delay of five hours in lodging of the report and it could be safely held, in circumstances, that time was consumed in deliberations and consultations---Material contradictions existed in statements of ocular account and those of Investigating Officer and Medical Officer---Ocular account and statement of Medical Officer were not in line with the post-mortem report which had created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Abscondence of accused, though being relevant, could not be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence; and not in isolation; and abscondence of accused alone could not be a substitute for real evidence---Substantive evidence of ocular account in the case, having already been disbelieved contention of counsel for complainant, in that respect was meaningless---Inherent infirmities existed in the prosecution case and the prosecution witnesses had contradicted each other on material particulars; and their testimony was inconsistent, untrustworthy and not confidence inspiring; it appeared that the occurrence was unseen; and had not taken place in the manner as stated by the prosecution---Prosecution was bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and if any single and slightest doubt was created, its benefit must go to accused---Trial Court had rightly extended the benefit of doubt to accused on valid and cogent reasons by correctly appreciating the evidence on record, and his acquittal, did not call for any…

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