Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2115 2017 SLD 2115 2017 YLR 436
Lahore High Court
Cr. A. No. 425 of 2012/BWP, Murder Reference No. 4 of 2013/BWP and PSLA No. 3 of 2013/BWP, hearing Date : 7-3-2016.
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE, CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Rai Bashir Ahmad for Appellants. Javed Hashmi for the Complainant. Malik Muhammad Jaffer, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

TALIB HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment of qatl-i-amd, common intention--Appreciation of evidence---Complainant had stated that he along with two others were going to the village in order to search his son and one relative who had gone there to see their friend at 9:00 p.m., but did not return till 2:00 a.m.---Complainant party was at some distance from the said village that they saw both(deceased) accompanied by an unknown girl (deceased) coming on a motor cycle---Two persons appeared and made indiscriminate firing on deceased persons and fled away---Witnesses of ocular account did not mention in FIR name of person to whom deceased had gone to see neither the said person was produced before Investi-gating Officer nor was summoned for verification---Deceased girl accompanying both male deceased was real sister of accused and as per defence was being taken forcibly by deceased persons---Prosecution could not justify company of deceased girl with the other deceased persons---One deceased was owner of motorbike as well as a car but motorbike found at the place of occurrence was obtained on rent---Deposition of complainant showed that firing upon the deceased was made from right side of deceased but fire hit on fuel tank of motorcycle on left side---Occurrence took place at 2:30 a.m. while matter was reported at 7:30 a.m. such delay was not properly explained---FIR and complaint did not show arrival of accused on motorcycle which was recovered during investigation---Motive was not alleged by prosecution---Presence of witnesses of ocular account at the place of occurrence at relevant time had become doubtful---Abetment by father of accused, as alleged, was not proved by confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal was dismissed. (b) Criminal trial--- ---Ocular testimony, disbelieved---Effect---When ocular testimony was disbelieved then recovery as well as medical evidence were of no help to prosecution. (c) Criminal trial--- ---Onus of establishing case---Prosecution had to establish its own case independently instead of depending upon weaknesses of defence. Waqar Ahmad v. Shaukat Ali and others 2006 SCMR 1139 rel. (d) Criminal…
🔒
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