| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 179 2015 SLD 179 2015 SCMR 710 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2009, decision dated: 24-02-2015,hearing DATE : 14-01-2015. (On appeal from the judgmentdated 26-5-2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2004 and M. R.No. 56 of 2006 passed by the Lahore High Court, MultanBench, Multan)
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JJ
Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (appointed by Court). Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional P.G. Punjab for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 688 of 2009, decision dated: 24-02-2015,hearing DATE : 14-01-2015. (On appeal from the judgmentdated 26-5-2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 2004 and M. R.No. 56 of 2006 passed by the Lahore High Court, MultanBench, Multan)
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JJ
Rizwan Ejaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (appointed by Court). Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional P.G. Punjab for the State
SAEED AHMEDvsThe STATE
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 117,122
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 340(2)
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
(a) Medical jurisprudence--- ----Strangulation, types of---Signs and consequences of strangulation on the victim. 'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' by H.W:V. Cox, (Sixth Edition), published by the Law Book Company, Allahabad ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 117 & 122---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Burden of proof---Accused failing to offer explanation about certain facts/circumstances incriminating him--- Effect--- Adverse inference against accused---With regard to vulnerable members of society, such as children, women and the infirm, who were living with the accused or were last in his company (before their death), the accused ought to offer some explanation as to what happened to them---Where instead of offering explanation the accused remained silent or offered a false explanation he cast a shadow upon himself, but this did not mean that the burden of proof had shifted onto the accused, as it was for the prosecution to prove its case---With respect to the helpless or the weak that required protection or care it would not be sufficient for the accused to stay silent in circumstances which tended to incriminate him, and if he elected to do so he lightened the burden of the prosecution. Smith v. Emperor AIR 1918 Madras 111; re: Naina Mohamed AIR 1960 Madras 218; Deonandan Mishra v. The State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 801; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy AIR 1997 SC 1588; State of Karnataka v. Khaja Hussain 1982 (3) SCC 456; Ram Gulam Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 2001 (8) SCC 311; State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144; State of Rajasthan v. Jaggu Ram AIR 2008 SC 982; Muhammad Akram v. State 2003 SCMR 855; Arshad Mehmood v. State 2005 SCMR 1524 and Roheeda v. Khan Bahadur 1992 SCMR 1036 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 122---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life---Motive not proved---Accused failing to offer explanation about certain facts/circumstances incriminating him---Effect---Adverse inference against accused---Unnatural conduct of accused---Accused was convicted under S.…