| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3208 2016 SLD 3208 2016 MLD 1325 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1114 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 272 of 2011, heard on 7th October, 2015. Date of hearing: 7th October, 2015.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI AND SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, JUSTICE
Barrister Salman Safdar for Appellant. Tariq Javed, District Public Prosecutor for the State. Mian Javed Iqbal for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 1114 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 272 of 2011, heard on 7th October, 2015. Date of hearing: 7th October, 2015.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI AND SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, JUSTICE
Barrister Salman Safdar for Appellant. Tariq Javed, District Public Prosecutor for the State. Mian Javed Iqbal for the Complainant.
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR THROUGH ATTORNEY - --Appellant
VS
THE STATE - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------S.302 --------- -Qatl-i-amd --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Motive not proved --------- Postmortem report being silent, and not containing necessary details, as to cause of death --------- Delay in lodging FIR was suggestive of consultation and deliberation --------- Recovery of dead body from house of accused alone would not show that accused had killed the deceased --------- Accused was alleged to have murdered his wife by manually strangulating her --------- Trial court, having convicted the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C., sentenced him to death with direction to pay one hundred thousand to legal heir of the deceased --------- Doctor, while relying upon report of Chemical Examiner, had opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling and due to injuries, which were ante-mortem in nature --------- Large number of symptoms were absent, which ordinarily pointed out to cause of death being asphyxia by throttling --------- Prosecution had failed to give necessary details regarding alleged cause of death --------- High Court observed that where there was contradiction between medical and ocular account, the ocular testimony was to be preferred over medical evidence --------- Place of occurrence was residential room of house of the deceased --------- Eye-witnesses were in unison that they were healthy and energetic than the accused --------- Nothing had prevented both the eye-witnesses to move forward to rescue the deceased, particularly, when the accused was empty handed --------- Eye-witnesses had not offered any resistance to the accused to save life of the deceased, which was unusual and unnatural --------- Eye-witnesses, having seen the incident, should have reported the same with reasonable promptitude --------- Eye-witnesses informed the complainant, brother of deceased, telephonically, and FIR was registered upon his arrival, which suggested consultation or deliberation --------- Prosecution had not examined any independent witness --------- Witnesses, being closely related to complainant and being inmates of house of the deceased, were best witnesses, but their evidence found no…
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