Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 797 2014 SLD 797 2014 YLR 2026
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 4/I of 2014, decided on 21-04-2014. Dateof hearing: 04-04-2014.
ALLAMA DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, RIZWAN ALI DODANI, JUSTICE, MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, JUSTICE
Zahoor-ul-Haque Chishti for Appellant.Muhammad Tahir Iqbal Khattak, Additional Prosecutor General, Balochistan for the State.

ABDUL WAHEEDVS THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979)--- ----S.17(4)---Haraabah with murder---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Case of no ocular evidence---Firearm injury on the left side of chest of accused, was fatal, such injury on the vital part of the body of accused, did not appear to be self-inflicted---Police had not taken independent witnesses from the locality without any reasonable explanation---Police instead of asking respectables of area to witness the recoveries, got the street vacated and only Police Officials acted as mashirs---In case of availability of independent witnesses, if the recovery was not attested through them, same would be doubtful---No identification test of recovered money and mobile phone belonging to deceased had been conducted through the witnesses to ascertain the same as actual robbed property---Such lacunae were fatal to the case of prosecution; and could not be ignored specially in circumstances when there was no ocular evidence against accused---Complainant was the brother of deceased and other prosecution witnesses were also his close relatives---Prosecution witnesses, in the F.I.R. and during the evidence before the Trial Court had not nominated accused with the commission of crime---Witnesses, who had been declared hostile, had denied the suggestion made by the prosecution regarding involvement of accused in the commission of crime, or about any compromise allegedly arrived between the parties---Neither any "faisla" was produced on record nor any witness of such "faisla" was examined---Said version of prosecution was not supported through any oral or documentary evidence---Neither Investigating Officer of the case was examined, nor DSP, who was said to have attended proceedings of alleged compromise had come forward to support that contention---Contradictory versions of Police witnesses regarding arrest of accused were found on record---No Mashirnama of arrest of accused was produced to show as to when or from which place accused was arrested---All those facts had created serious doubts about the trustfulness of the case of prosecution against accused---For proof of theft liable to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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