Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 1421 2016 SLD 1421 2016 MLD 261
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 654 of 2006, heard on 25th June, 2015. Date of hearing: 25th June, 2015.
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Syed Badar Raza Gillani for Appellant. Hassan Mehmood Khan Tareen, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Sharif Karkhi Kherra for the Complainant.

MUHAMMAD YAR alias MAMI - --Appellant

VS

The STATE - --Respondent

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,322

Law: Credit Manual of Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan

Section: 342

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 302, 322 & 34 --------- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342 --------- Qatl-i-amd, Qatl-bis-sabab, common intention --------- Power to examine accused --------- Duty of prosecution as to proof --------- Prosecution failing to prove charge against accused --------- Effect --------- Statement of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. --------- Scope --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Death of deceased was admitted to have resulted from accident --------- Admission treated as exculpatory statement --------- Accused, along with two others, was alleged to have killed deceased by injuring him with butt of gun and sotas --------- Trial court, disbelieving prosecution story, acquitted accused from charge under S. 302, P.P.C., but convicted and sentenced him under S. 322, P.P.C. making him liable to pay Diyat on ground that accused had admitted during his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. that alleged occurrence was a road accident --------- Accused, during his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., had stated that deceased's buffalo, having become scared due to light of motorcycle, had run over his motorcycle, and as a result thereof, all present there had sustained injuries --------- Medical witness, who examined deceased, had supported said statement of accused --------- Accused had not admitted his guilt; rather his statement was exculpatory in nature --------- Prosecution was bound to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt --------- Where prosecution version was disbelieved, statement of accused was to be considered as a whole and not in piecemeal --------- Conviction recorded by Trial Court was not sustainable --------- Accused was acquitted --------- Appeal was allowed accordingly. (b) Criminal trial --------- - ----------Duty of prosecution to prove charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --------- ----------S. 342 --------- Power to examine accused --------- Statement of accused, appreciation of --------- Where prosecution version is disbelieved, statement of accused is to be considered as a whole and not in piecemeal. THIS…
🔒
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