Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3231 2016 SLD 3231 2016 MLD 1840
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1764 of 2003, heard on 14th October,2014. Date of hearing: 14th October, 2014.
MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, JUSTICE AND AALIA NEELUM, JUSTICE
Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for Appellant/the State.Nemo for
Respondents.

THE STATE - --AppellantVSMUKHTAR AHMAD AND 5 OTHERS --RespondentS

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 302, 324, 336, 395, 460, 148 & 149 --------- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417 --------- Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-Udw, dacoity, lurking house-trespass by night, rioting, common object --------- Appeal against acquittal --------- Reappraisal of evidence --------- Delay in reporting the matter to the Police, was not plausibly explained, and name of informer was also not disclosed by the prosecution --------- Incident had taken place inside the house of the complainant at 12.00 (midnight), and no source of light was mentioned in the statement of the complainant --------- Identification parade was conducted with delay of six days after arrest of accused, who remained in the Police Station before identification parade --------- Complainant, nominated two accused persons prior to proceedings of identification parade --------- Prosecution case entirely depended upon identification parade and recoveries effected from accused persons, proceedings of identification parade had to be seen with care and caution --------- Complainant and alleged eye-witnesses had not mentioned the description, age and complexion of accused persons, who took part in the incident and were present there --------- Recoveries of the alleged robbed articles from accused persons, were highly doubtful --------- Alleged recovered articles, were not sealed in the parcel --------- Recoveries of gun 12 bore and pistol 30 bore from accused persons, were of no concern, as no crime empty was secured from the place of occurrence --------- Complainant, had introduced entirely different story before the court --------- Complainant's statement, supplementary statement of prosecution witness and deposition before the court, were all together different; and with variation of time, the complainant changed his stance, which made prosecution story highly doubtful --------- Grounds taken by the Trial Court for acquittal of accused persons, did not find any illegality in the impugned --------- Appeal against acquittal had distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction ---------…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register