Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2713 2016 SLD 2713 2016 PCRLJ 491
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 692, 743 of 2006, P.S.L.A. No. 67 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 470 of 2006, heard on 17th April, 2015. Date of hearing: 17th April, 2015.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Arshad Nazir Mirza for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 692 of 2006). Rana Muhammad Zahid for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 743 of 2006). Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Muhammad Inayat Ullah Cheema for the Complainant.

MAQBOOL ARSHAD ALIAS SAJJAD HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER - --AppellantS

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS --Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 302(b) & 324 --------- Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit Qatl-i-amd --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Evidence, improvements in --------- Benefit of doubt --------- Recovered weapon not used in occurrence --------- Seven accused persons were tried in private complaint out of them five were acquitted and two were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by Trial Court --------- Validity --------- Improvements were made by complainant and eye witness dishonestly and deliberately, who were duly confronted by defense during cross-examination --------- Such improvements created serious doubt about veracity and credibility of witnesses and it was not safe to rely upon evidence of such witnesses --------- No injury to the deceased as well as injured was caused with weapon of offence recovered during investigation --------- Investigating Officer failed to collect any crime empty from scene of occurrence and in absence of any positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory, recovery of weapons of offence was inconsequential and the same could not be used in support of prosecution evidence --------- Prosecution failed to prove its case against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt --------- Not many circumstances in prosecution story creating doubt against accused were required rather a single circumstance creating a doubt was enough for acquittal of accused --------- High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted them of the charge by extending benefit of doubt to them --------- Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550 and Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State and others 2010 SCMR 385 ref. Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. (b) Criminal trial --------- ----------Medical evidence --------- Scope --------- Such evidence can only confirm seat and time of injuries and kind of weapons used during occurrence but does not point out as to which accused has caused injuries. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---------…
🔒
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