Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 68 2017 SLD 68 2017 SCMR 1999
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 37-L and 38-L of 2012, decision & hearing Date : 31-08- 2017.
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Rai Bashir Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Crl. A. 37-L of 2012). Sher Afghan Asad, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Crl. A. 38-L of 2012). Ch. Muhammad Waheed, APG., Punjab for the State.

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF JAVEED & ANOTHER

VS

MUHAMMAD UMAR & OTHERS

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--.-- --.---S. 302(b)--.--Qatl-i-amd--.--Reappraisal of evidence--.--Ocular account furnished by the witnesses suffered from legal and factual infirmities and did not appeal to a prudent mind--.--Question was as to how the prosecution witnesses reached the spot from different directions and how they assumed that probably the deceased was present there--.--No witness had been produced to show that the prosecution witnesses were in search of the deceased on the fateful night--.--Deceased suffered a solitary major injury, but his father decided to get him cured through a private medical practitioner whose name was brought on record without mentioning his professional qualification--.--Autopsy report and the operation notes showed that deceased went into a semi-coma condition, therefore, the question was why he was not brought to the hospital before going into a coma--.--Hospital was closely situated to the police station but neither the complainant nor the prosecution witnesses or the treating doctor and hospital staff informed the police about the arrival of the medico-legal case/deceased to cover up the long delay in reporting the matter to the police--.--Numerous excuses were advanced by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses to the effect that accused restrained them from reporting the matter to the police but no independent witness was produced to corroborate the same--.--Investigating officer did not take into possession the bulb allegedly lit at the crime spot and no reason had been shown for such omission which was the only source of identification--.--Medico-legal Report and autopsy report of the deceased were inconclusive and even the medical officer who conducted the autopsy conceded that the fatal injury could have been caused due to a fall from height which supported the plea of the defence that services of the deceased were hired for fixing lights on the electric poles and he fell down therefrom and sustained injuries--.--Recovery of the iron rod would show that it was not blood-stained and it was also not sent to the Chemical Examiner--.--Motive for the occurrence had been disbelieved by the High Court--.--Evidence…
🔒
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