Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2528 2016 SLD 2528 2016 YLR 1758
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 161-J, 1082 and 1074 of 2010, heard on 16-09-2015, hearing DATE : 16-09-2015.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Mudassar Naveed Chatha for Appellants (in Cr. App. No. 161-J and 1082 of 2010). Nemo for Appellants (in Cr. App. No. 1074 of 2010). Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Salman Safdar for the Complainant.

MUHAMMAD ASIF AND others.

VS

THE STATE AND others.

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---.---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---.---Benefit of doubt---.---FIR had not been exhibited in evidence---.---Delay of just one hour and fifteen minutes in reporting the matter to the Police---.---Accused, were not named in the FIR as the culprits---.---FIR, in circumstances, would not render any sort of corroboration to the case of the prosecution qua the identification of accused persons---.---Complainant, was not the eye-witness of the occurrence; and nobody was mentioned in the application as well as in the FIR, as eye-witness of the incident---.---Names of eye-witnesses of the occurrence, for the first time were introduced, in the supplementary statement later by the complainant---.---One of the prosecution witnesses was given up by the prosecution---.---Occurrence took place at about 08.00 p.m., but no source of light was at the place of occurrence---.---Prosecution witnesses thus could not identify accused persons---.---Prosecution witnesses, who were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence, could not be believed as trustworthy or confidence inspiring, medical evidence, would not bear any significance---.---Recovery of pistol .30 bore allegedly effected from one accused, would not hold much importance, as there was no allegation against remaining accused persons regarding use of firearm weapons during the incident---.---Recovery of motorcycle, mobile phone and cash from accused persons, was not believed, because, such items were easy to plant upon accused persons---.---Case to the extent of accused persons, was of doubtful nature; and their conviction and sentence on the basis of such type of shaky and unreliable evidence could not be maintained---.---Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt; impugned was set aside and accused were acquitted of the charges against them, and were released forthwith; in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302(b)---.--- Qatl-i-amd---.--- Appreciation of evidence---.---Medical evidence---.---Scope---.---Medical evidence could confirm the ocular evidence with…
🔒
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