Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2137 2015 SLD 2137 2015 MLD 553
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2010, heard on 28th May, 2014.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J
Qazi Muhammad Amin for Appellants. Sh. Najaf Hanif for the Complainant. Qaisar Mushtaq, ADPP for the State.

[Lahore] AMEEN KHAN and another

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No direct evidence was available on record and prosecution case rested upon the circumstantial evidence---Complainant, who had not seen the alleged occurrence, had not narrated any motive, and contended that the cause of the occurrence was unknown, but in the court he had narrated the motive, which could be treated as an afterthought/improvement, which was not only discarded, but that had created serious doubt about his credibility---Ocular account of one of the prosecution witnesses, had not helped the prosecution---Conduct of other prosecution witness, had cast serious doubt about his veracity and credibility---Blood-stained clothes, which during the alleged occurrence were being worn by accused, were recovered and taken into possession, but nothing was available on the record to suggest that blood on the clothes was that of the deceased---Said recovery, did not benefit the prosecution---Confession/admission allegedly made by accused before the Police, was not admissible/acceptable under the law---Prosecution had failed to establish its case, and charge against accused was not proved beyond any doubt---Trial Court was not justified in convicting accused through impugned which was set aside---Accused were acquitted extending them the benefit of doubt, in circumstances. Muhammad Wasif Khan and others v. The State and others 2011 PCr.LJ 470; Farman Ahmed v. Muhammad Inayat and others 2007 SCMR 1825; Muhammad Ashraf and another v. The State 2011 YLR 767; Qazi alias Dost Muhammad and another v. The State 2014 PCr.LJ 611; The State through Deputy Director Anti-Narcotic Force, Karachi v. Syed Abdul Qayum 2001 SCMR 14 and Salim Javed Durrani v. State through Dy. Attorney General, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others 2005 PCr.LJ 22 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Each and every circumstance should be unified in such a manner that a continuous chain should be made, one end of which should touch the dead-body, whereas the other end should be around the neck of accused---If chain link was missing,…
🔒
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