| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2495 2017 SLD 2495 2017 YLR 2101 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 60 of 2010, decision & hearing Dated: 6-9-2016.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Tanveer Haider Buzdar and Mehar Afzal Hussain for Appellants. Ahmad Raza for the Complainant. Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 60 of 2010, decision & hearing Dated: 6-9-2016.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Tanveer Haider Buzdar and Mehar Afzal Hussain for Appellants. Ahmad Raza for the Complainant. Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab for the State.
MUHAMMAD KHALID
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Extra-judicial confession---Scope---Complainant had alleged that his real brother along with co-accused had committed murder of his daughter---Accused had made joint extrajudicial confession before the prosecution witnesses including father of deceased---Father of the deceased would not make a false statement against his real brother, nonetheless, in dispensation of criminal justice, mere credentials or status of a witness could not form the basis for acceptance of his testimony---Evidence of extra-judicial confession furnished by the prosecution witnesses warranted scrutiny and examination on the touchstone of probability, notwithstanding, the inter-se relationship between the accused and the prosecution witnesses---No evidence was available even to obliquely frame the accused with the charge---Statements of prosecution witnesses were not in line with each other---Story of extrajudicial confession was seemingly a usual exercise undertaken by the police invariably in every case lacking direct evidence---Both the accused were shown to have made confession in a joint session and as such, a joint disclosure could not be read in evidence being inadmissible to their detriment--- Attending circumstances suggested doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story, benefit of which resolved in favour of accused---Conviction on the basis of extrajudicial confession without corroboration could not be awarded---Accused were acquitted and conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court were set-aside in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Scope---Prosecution witnesses had alleged that they had seen the deceased child in the company of accused and co-accused while heading towards place of occurrence---Natural and obvious response of the said prosecution witnesses would have been to share such information with the family of the deceased---Pointing out of place of occurrence did not constitute valid…
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