| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3249 2016 SLD 3249 2016 PCRLJ 903 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2005, heard on 1st July, 2015. Date of hearing: 1st July, 2015.
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE
Kamran Khan Niazi for Appellant. Sarfraz Ahmad Khatana, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2005, heard on 1st July, 2015. Date of hearing: 1st July, 2015.
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE
Kamran Khan Niazi for Appellant. Sarfraz Ahmad Khatana, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State.
SHABBIR AHMAD - --Appellant
VS
The STATE - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------S. 302(b) --------- Qatl-i-amd --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Benefit of doubt --------- Matter was reported to the Police after unexplained delay of more than eight and half hours --------- Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, was also conducted with unexplained delay of about ten and half hours --------- Presence of the witnesses at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time was doubtful --------- Conviction could be based on the strength of solitary witness, provided, evidence of said solitary witness inspired confidence; and was of unimpeachable character --------- In the present case, solitary witness was not cited as the eye-witness of the occurrence in the crime report; had said witness, along with the complainant witnessed the occurrence, he would have reported the matter to the Police promptly, but that had not been done in the case --------- Statement of said witness was discrepant with the medical evidence --------- Incident was a dark night occurrence, and no source of light was shown in the site plan --------- Tractor trolly in the light of which prosecution witness claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, was never available to the prosecution to establish the identification of accused, as the same was never taken into possession by the Police during the investigation --------- Statement of said solitary witness, was also pregnant with material improvements, which had made his testimony unreliable and untrustworthy --------- Material witness, who was living adjacent to the place of occurrence, was not joined with the investigation --------- Prosecution withheld evidence of (given up prosecution witness), which also led the court to infer against the prosecution case --------- Crime empty taken into possession from the place of occurrence; and 30 bore pistol allegedly recovered at the instance of accused, were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison --------- Alleged recovery of pistol, was inconsequential and was sufficient to give benefit to the accused --------- Present case was replete with circumstances which had created doubts about the…
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