| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2206 2016 SLD 2206 2016 YLR 704 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr.A. No. 30-A of 2012, decided & hearing on 27-05-2015.
: LAL, JAN KHATTAK AND QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Ghulam Mustafa Khan Swati for Appellant. Addl. A.G. for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant.
Cr.A. No. 30-A of 2012, decided & hearing on 27-05-2015.
: LAL, JAN KHATTAK AND QALANDAR ALI KHAN, JUSTICE
Ghulam Mustafa Khan Swati for Appellant. Addl. A.G. for the State. Shad Muhammad Khan for the Complainant.
ABDUL LATEEF
VS
. THE STATE AND another--RespondentS
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, common object---Appreciation of evidence---Inordinate, unexplained delay of 14 hours in lodging FIR, would cast serious doubts about credibility of the report and authenticity of the FIR---Neither, the complainant, nor the two eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, received a single injury or even a scratch in the occurrence, despite alleged indiscriminate firing which would give rise to serious doubts about the presence of the complainant and eye-witnesses at the spot---One of accused persons, also sustained axe blow injuries, and lodged his report under Ss.337-F(ii) & 34, P.P.C., against both the eye-witnesses, giving a different version about the occurrence---Crime empties, recovered during spot inspection, and the so-called weapon of offence, were received in the Forensic Science Laboratory for their examination by the Fire Arms Expert, with considerable delay of five days, with no cogent evidence with respect to their safe custody during intervening period, eroding the evidentiary value of the report of Fire Arms Expert---One of accused persons, had been acquitted of the charge under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965---Recovery of other weapon of offence i.e. axes, would be of no significance as same were not having blood stains, and their handles were found freshly cut---Contradictions/discrepancies, existed, in the statement of Investigating Officer in the court, with regard to date of arrest of accused persons---On account of said contradictions/discrepancies Trial Court was constrained to pass remarks against Investigating Officer, and approach DIG for action against him---Even then, the benefit of such discrepancies/doubts, was not extended to accused persons---Trial Court acquitted co-accused, who was specifically charged for qatl-i-amd of the deceased along with accused persons---Trial Court, took extra pain to explain that absence of post-mortem report would have no adverse effect on the prosecution case, but lost sight of the fact that in view of substantial delay in lodging the FIR, and fatal discrepancies in the ocular and circumstantial evidence of 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