| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1648 2017 SLD 1648 2017 SCMR 1155 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2012, decision & hearing Date : 19-04-2017 (Against the judgment Dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2009 and Murder Reference No. 5 of 2009)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE
Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2012, decision & hearing Date : 19-04-2017 (Against the judgment Dated 12.10.2011 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2009 and Murder Reference No. 5 of 2009)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, QAZI FAEZ ISA, JUSTICE
Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
ABDUL JABBAR ALIAS JABBARI
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.----S. 302(b)---.--- Qatl-i-amd---.---Re-appraisal of evidence---.---Benefit of doubt---.---Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, were very closely related to deceased inasmuch as the complainant was the son of the deceased and the other eye-witness was a nephew of the deceased---.---Both the said eyewitnesses were chance witnesses who had failed to establish the stated reason for their availability at the scene of the crime at the relevant time through any independent evidence---.---FIR in respect of the incident had not been lodged at the local Police Station giving rise to an inference that the FIR had been chalked out after deliberations and preliminary investigation at the spot---.---Medico-legal certificate issued in respect of deceased when he was alive showed that the injured victim was brought to the hospital not by the eye-witnesses but by a police official which showed that in all likelihood the said eyewitnesses had been procured and planted in the case at some subsequent stage---.---Post-mortem examination had been conducted after about 12 hours of deceased's death which again indicated that time had been consumed by the local police in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and in cooking up a story for the prosecution---.---According to the FIR the place of occurrence ought to have been a field wherein the deceased and the complainant were grazing their cattle but the site-plan of the place of occurrence showed that the murder of the deceased had been committed inside a compound which surely was not a proper place for cattle to graze---.---Eye-witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence from a distance of about 117-1/2 feet and still they claimed to have witnessed every detail of the incident including the different weapons being used by the accused party, which was a claim which could not be easily accepted---.---No independent corroboration or support had been received by the ocular account furnished by the prosecution---.---Medico-legal certificate issued in respect of deceased when he was alive showed that the injuries received by him had been caused by a firearm, a sharp-edged weapon as well…
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