| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2509 2017 SLD 2509 2017 YLR 2291 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 332, Criminal P.S.L.A. No. 85 and MurderReference No. 100 of 2012, heard on 31-1-2017.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE, CH. ABDUL AZIZ, JUSTICE
Azam Nazeer Tarar and Qulandar Hussain Bhatti for Appellant.Ch. Muhammad Riaz Ahmad for the Complainant.Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 332, Criminal P.S.L.A. No. 85 and MurderReference No. 100 of 2012, heard on 31-1-2017.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE, CH. ABDUL AZIZ, JUSTICE
Azam Nazeer Tarar and Qulandar Hussain Bhatti for Appellant.Ch. Muhammad Riaz Ahmad for the Complainant.Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
MUHAMMAD NADEEM ALIAS NADEEM HUSSAINVS THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging of FIR---Effect---Admittedly, matter was reported to the police with a delay of about 17 hours---No plausible explanation was brought on record by the prosecution---Said delay in reporting the matter to the police cast a doubt about the veracity of the story incorporated in the crime report, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused. Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 2017 SCMR 144 and Wajahat Ahmed and others v. The State and others 2016 SCMR 2073 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not corroborated by medical evidence---Prosecution case was that accused along with co-accused committed murder of the son of complainant---Ocular account was furnished by three prosecution witnesses including complainant---FIR showed that the occurrence was not witnessed by any of the three eye-witnesses produced during the trial---Later on, complainant had claimed that he along with eye-witnesses witnessed the occurrence---During the course of examination-in-chief, complainant disowned the complaint by saying that police obtained his thumb impressions on blank paper and thereafter recorded his incorrect version---During the course of cross-examination, complainant had negated and contradicted his said version---Complainant did not raise any objection regarding the contents of FIR---Complainant made improvements during the course of his examination-in-chief---Record transpired that neither the complainant nor the witnesses were residents of the place of occurrence---Accused was portrayed as rich landlord of the vicinity but his house/dera was so unguarded and unprotected that the prosecution witnesses allegedly made ingress and that too at the odd hours of the night, when the fatal shot was fired---Said witnesses, from the facts, could be termed as chance witnesses and their testimony as unnatural---Statements of said three eye-witnesses showed that accused fired at the deceased with a carbine---Site plan showed the distance between…