| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2478 2016 SLD 2478 2016 SCMR 2138 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2010, decided on 26th September, 2016. Date of hearing: 26th September, 2016. (Against the judgment Dated 9-6-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2004 and Murder Refere
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2010, decided on 26th September, 2016. Date of hearing: 26th September, 2016. (Against the judgment Dated 9-6-2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Criminal Appeal No. 465 of 2004 and Murder Refere
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE AND MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Asjad Javed Ghural, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
FAISAL MEHMOOD
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was alleged to have murdered his step-mother and step-siblings to get an undue share of property from his father (i.e. complainant)---Occurrence in issue had remained un-witnessed and the same had taken place during a night---Stance of complainant regarding his whereabouts at the time of incident was falsified by one of the prosecution witnesses---Duration between deaths and post-mortem examinations had been recorded by the doctor to be between 18 to 36 hours, showing that a lot of deliberations had taken place before the FIR had actually been registered---Perusal of post-mortem examination reports of deceased persons and police record indicated that till conducting of the post-mortem examinations the FIR had not actually been registered and the time of murders was not readily known---Deposition of alleged witness of last seen evidence showed that he had been procured and planted at some subsequent stage and he was not telling the truth---Accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession before a prosecution witness in the house of person "A"---Said witness had not provided a reason for his presence in the house of "A" and admittedly person "A" had not been produced by the prosecution as a witness---Record showed that the witness of alleged extra judicial confession waited for 2/3 days before he informed the police about the alleged confession---Witness of alleged extra judicial confession claimed that he produced the accused before the police after the alleged confession, whereas the complainant and police claimed accused had been arrested from some place---Recovery of a blood-stained hatchet allegedly at the instance of the accused was effected from a cattle shed of the complainant which showed that the same had not been recovered from exclusive custody of the accused---Provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C. had clearly been violated in the matter of the said recovery---Report of serologist showing the origin of the blood available on the recovered hatchet to be human blood was prepared about 2 years after the report of the Chemical…
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