| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2163 2017 SLD 2163 2017 YLR 775 |
Federal Shariat Court
Jail Cr. A.s No. 4/I, Cr. A.s Nos. 06/I and 07/I of 2016, decision Dated: 17-11-2016, hearing Dates: 27 and 28-10-2016.
MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Sharif Janjua for Appellant (in J. Cr. A. No. 04/I of 2016). Muhammad Raziq Khan and Aziz Muhammad for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 06/I of 2016). Raja Shahzad Javed for Appellant (in Cr. A. No. 07/I/2016). Arshad Ahmad Assistant Advocate General
Jail Cr. A.s No. 4/I, Cr. A.s Nos. 06/I and 07/I of 2016, decision Dated: 17-11-2016, hearing Dates: 27 and 28-10-2016.
MRS. ASHRAF, JAHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Sharif Janjua for Appellant (in J. Cr. A. No. 04/I of 2016). Muhammad Raziq Khan and Aziz Muhammad for Appellants (in Cr. A. No. 06/I of 2016). Raja Shahzad Javed for Appellant (in Cr. A. No. 07/I/2016). Arshad Ahmad Assistant Advocate General
SUHBAT KHAN
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 201, 392 & 411---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, robbery, dishonestly receiving stolen property, haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Occurrence was an unseen incident---No direct evidence of the alleged incident was available, except circumstantial evidence---Incident being un-witnessed, strong and consistent circumstantial evidence was required to prove the guilt of accused persons, which element was lacking in the case---Narration of facts as put forward in alleged confession, when placed in juxta position with other evidence, mainly with medical evidence, did not portray a real or truthful story---No post-mortem of the dead body having been conducted, it could not be safely concluded that death was caused due to strangulation---Retracted confession, not finding support from the medical evidence, could not be made basis for conviction of accused---Medical evidence, was not supportive, cause of death as per medical examination report, was not known---Evidence, in respect of alleged recovery against accused, had become doubtful and was of no help to the prosecution---Information with regard to incident was given after lapse of 27 days, without any explanation for such delay---Accused allegedly had been nominated on receiving spy information, but no name or source of spy information was disclosed---One of the accused persons was acquitted by the Trial Court on same set of evidence, whereas another accused initially nominated as accused was discharged under S.169, Cr.P.C. and finally his name was arrayed in the list of witnesses---Prosecution having failed to prove the charge against accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, passed by the Trial Court was set aside, accused persons were directed to be released forthwith, in circumstances. Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others 2016 SCMR 274; Qaiser Ali v. The State 2016 YLR 1903 and Mohabbat v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 73 rel. State through the Advocate General N.W.F.P. Peshawar v.…
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