| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 107 2017 SLD 107 2017 PCRLJ 79 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 83, 94 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2006, heard on 18th February, 2016. Date of hearing: 18th February, 2016.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE AND RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Ch. Afrasiab Khan for Appellant. Qausain Faisal Mufti for the Complainant. Muhammad Usman Mirza, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ilyas, SI for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 83, 94 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 59 of 2006, heard on 18th February, 2016. Date of hearing: 18th February, 2016.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE AND RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Ch. Afrasiab Khan for Appellant. Qausain Faisal Mufti for the Complainant. Muhammad Usman Mirza, Deputy Prosecutor General with Ilyas, SI for the State.
SAQIB ZEB ALIAS SAQI AND others
VS
. THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd; attempt to commit qatl-i-amd; common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons were carrying rifles, and the present accused had been assigned repeated fire shots both on the deceased and on the injured---Recovery of the 30-calibre pistol at the instance of present accused was not consistent with the case originally structured in the complaint---Weapon had been substituted and another person had been added/implicated as accused through supplementary statement---Accused, subsequently implicated through supplementary statement, had been assigned the shot to the deceased with a 12-calibre gun---Doctor had retrieved six pellets and one plastic cover from inside the dead body and there was only one exit wound observed on the dead body, which aspect of the medical evidence was not in line with the ocular account---Substitution of the weapon had rendered the Forensic Science Laboratory report meaningless; even otherwise, the casings had been dispatched subsequent to the arrest of the present accused and as such the report was not of much help to the prosecution---After the Trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution evidence regarding two out of the three identically placed co-accused, additional independent corroboration was required to consider the same set of evidence to the detriment of the present accused---Rejection of motive and inconsequential recovery could not justify to be as an independent corroboration---Supplementary statement was not in consonance with the brief facts of the case narrated in the inquest report, which suggested that the exercise had been undertaken at a later point than stated therein---High Court, therefore, setting aside the conviction, acquitted the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Azhar Iqbal v. The State 2013 SCMR 383 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 342---Power to examine accused---Principles---Accused cannot be convicted after rejection of the prosecution evidence merely on the basis of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. Azhar Iqbal v. The State 2013 SCMR 383 rel. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of…
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