Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3322 2016 SLD 3322 2016 PCRLJ 1319
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1758, 1916 and Murder Reference No. 342 of 2009, heard on 8th February, 2016. Date of hearing: 8th February, 2016.
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE AND CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Ijaz Ahmad Chadhar and Ch. Ahmad Masood Gujjar for Appellants. Ashraf Ali Qureshi for the Complainant. Malik Muhammad Jaffar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

MUHAMMAD IRSHAD AND OTHERS --AppellantS

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS --Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------S. 302(b) --------- Qatl-i-amd --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Occurrence took place at night and the same was reported to the police in the morning --------- Police witness deposed that the body was lying east-west with face downwards, which indicated that the body remained unattended at night --------- All the eye witnesses were close relatives of the deceased --------- Main grievance of the accused was against the complainant at the relevant time due to the civil and criminal litigation pending between them --------- Accused persons were allegedly armed with deadly weapons, but the eye-witnesses did not receive a scratch during the incident, nor had they informed the police --------- Conduct of the eyewitnesses, complainant and his sons was unnatural --------- Eye-witnesses did not make any effort to save life of the deceased --------- Ocular account of the incident was not in line with the medical evidence --------- Crime empties, as per Forensic Laboratory Report, had not been fired from the recovered rifle --------- Conviction could not be based on weak, unreliable and untrustworthy direct evidence even if the same had been corroborated by the supporting evidence --------- Eye witnesses had not only made improvements in their statements, but the same were also inconsistent --------- Trial court had acquitted the co-accused on the same set of evidence --------- Ocular account, being indivisible in nature, could not be made basis for conviction in absence of strong corroboratory evidence coming from independent source --------- Probative force of ocular account had to be seen in the light of facts and circumstances of each case --------- High Court acquitted the accused --------- Appeal against conviction was accepted accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------S. 302 --------- - Qatl-i-amd --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Principles --------- Ocular account in case of Qatl-i-amd, plays a decisive and vital role and once intrinsic worth of the same is accepted and believed, then, rest of the evidence, both circumstantial and corroboratory in nature, will be required…
🔒
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