Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3832 2016 SLD 3832 2016 YLR 1891
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 245-J of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 746 of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 314 of 2010, heard on 28th January, 2014. Date of hearing: 28th January, 2014.
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD AND ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Miss Humaira Kaiser for Appellant (in Cr.A. No.245-J of 2013) and Syed Kafait Hussain Naqvi for Appellant (in Cr.A. No.746 of 2010). Mirza Abid Majeed, D.P.G. for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.

ZAFAR IQBAL AND another

VS

. THE STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- -----Ss.302(b) & 392-----Qatl-i-amd, robbery-----Appreciation of evidence-----Claim of the complainant and the witnesses being that they could identify accused persons, if brought before them, identification parade, in circumstances, was must, which was dispensed with in the case without any plausible explanation-----Complainant while lodging the FIR, had not given any specific description of robbers who fired upon the deceased-----Prosecution's own case being that prior to identifying accused persons in the court, complainant had seen accused persons in the Police Post in the custody of the Police; no reliance could be placed upon said identification; and sanctity could not be attached to the identification test held in the court-----Ocular account was not confidence inspiring, without any legal identification parade-----Recovery of the Pump Action gun from accused, was effected in another criminal case-----Said weapon of offence was never produced during the trial to prove that it was the same gun which was allegedly recovered on the pointation of accused-----No positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory was on the file-----In absence of any positive report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, recovery of any weapon was inconsequential, and no reliance could be placed upon said recovery-----Evidence which was disbelieved to the extent of remaining accused, could not be taken into consideration against accused persons without any independent corroboration-----In the present case, no independent corroborative piece of evidence was available to the ocular account-----Most important witness, who was present at the time of occurrence, and had seen the occurrence, was not produced in the case by the prosecution-----Adverse inference, could be drawn against prosecution, in circumstances-----Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused persons, beyond any shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded against accused persons by the Trial Court, was set aside-----Accused were acquitted of the charge and were released, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)----- -----Art. 22-----Identification…
🔒
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