| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2512 2014 SLD 2512 2014 YLR 980 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals No. 1672, 1674 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 42-T of 2010, heard on 28th October, 2013
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI AND MISS AALIA NEELUM, JJ
Mian Irfan Akram and Nasir Mehboob Tiwana for Appellants. Tairq Javed, DDPP for the State. Syed Amjad Ali Kazmi, Ch. Naseer Ahmed Cheema and Asif Imran Ahmed Awan for the Complainant
Criminal Appeals No. 1672, 1674 and Capital Sentence Reference No. 42-T of 2010, heard on 28th October, 2013
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI AND MISS AALIA NEELUM, JJ
Mian Irfan Akram and Nasir Mehboob Tiwana for Appellants. Tairq Javed, DDPP for the State. Syed Amjad Ali Kazmi, Ch. Naseer Ahmed Cheema and Asif Imran Ahmed Awan for the Complainant
IMRAN HAIDER and another
VS
The STATE and another
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 34, 365-A & 201---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of dead-body allegedly was effected on the pointation of accused persons, but nothing was on record to show as to whether dead body was recovered on the joint pointation of accused persons, and that the story of the Investigating Officer, was truthful---Memo of recovery of dead body was not available on record, which created cracks in the prosecution version---Dead body, not only was not identifiable with certainty, rather rest of the superstructure raised on it would fall on the ground, especially when the other aspects of the case, were of the nature, which could be architected very easily---Recovery of service card, key of motorcycle and shoes of the deceased were not incriminating material to connect accused persons with the commission of offence, as those were recovered after almost one month of the occurrence---Prosecution witness who claimed to have lastly seen the deceased in the company of accused persons, had appeared before the Investigating Officer, with a delay of forty days---Last seen evidence, in circumstances, had straightway become inconsequential---Complainant had produced before the Investigating Officer the audio-cassette pertaining to calls allegedly made by accused, demanding ransom---Investigating Officer was not informed about the calls on specific dates, nor during the course of investigation, data was collected with regard to mobile numbers belonging to accused persons in order to strengthen the prosecution case---Confessional statement recorded on oath was not admissible and not put to accused while recording his statement in terms of S.342, Cr.P.C., nor to any of his co-accused---Such confession could not have been used against co-accused---Whole prosecution case was based upon circumstantial evidence and for basing conviction on circumstantial evidence, there should be interlinking chain of…
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