| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2965 2015 SLD 2965 2015 PCRLJ 1619 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 121-J of 2009, heard on 12th March, 2015
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J
Subah Sadiq Wattoo Defence Counsel appointed at State Expense for Appellant. Nisar Ahmad Virk Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 121-J of 2009, heard on 12th March, 2015
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J
Subah Sadiq Wattoo Defence Counsel appointed at State Expense for Appellant. Nisar Ahmad Virk Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.
SHER MUHAMMAD
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)(c) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Matter was reported to the Police promptly, within thirty minutes after the occurrence---Post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, was conducted on the same day just after five hours of the occurrence which established presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence---Name of one prosecution witness was not mentioned in the FIR, while other one did not state that he was present at the time of occurrence---No reliance could be placed on the testimony of said witnesses---Complainant was the resident of the same street where occurrence took place---Promptitude in lodging of FIR, having established the presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence, his statement was worthy of credence---No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution by non-production of two prosecution witnesses---One of said witness was given-up as won-over, whereas to the extent of other one, it was observed that it was the prerogative of the prosecution to produce as many witnesses as it thought appropriate---If the defence believed, that said witnesses might not have supported the prosecution case, they might have been examined as defence witnesses, but no effort was made by the defence to summon those witnesses for evidence---Ocular account furnished by the complainant to the extent of accused was fully supported by the medical evidence---Prosecution failed to prove the motive set out in the FIR---Recovery of wooden slab (Phatti) at the instance of accused, was inconsequential, as there was no mention in the recovery memo that said Phatti was stained with blood---No attesting witness of the recovery memo. was produced before the Trial Court and said Phatti was not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner or Serologist to ascertain, whether the same was stained with blood or otherwise---No corroboration, could be sought from the alleged recovery of Phatti at the instance of accused---Accused, could not claim any benefit from the acquittal of his three co-accused persons---Injury attributed to one of said…
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