Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 3712 2016 SLD 3712 2016 MLD 1887
Lahore High Court

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, JUSTICE
Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry, Nasir Mehboob Tiwani and Naeem Akhtar Girwah for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No.1381 of 2007). Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No.779 of 2007). Iftikhar ul Haq Chaudhry, Addl. Prosecutor General for the

MUHAMMAD IRFAN AND another

VS

. THE STATE AND others

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--------- ----------Ss. 302(b), 364 & 201---------Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.40---------Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence---------Appreciation of evidence---------Sentence, reduction in---------Present case was of circumstantial evidence---------Dead body of the deceased was got recovered by accused persons themselves---------Deceased was proved to have been abducted in a deceiptful means to kill---------Statement of prosecution witnesses related to different incident of having seen the deceased in the company of accused persons---------Departure of the deceased from his house up to his reaching along with accused persons had not been demolished despite the fact that searching cross-examination was carried out over the prosecution witnesses; and they all had been found consistent to their statements, and persistent to the accusation---------Prosecution had proved its case so far as the abduction of the deceased in order to murder him was concerned---------Material on record did not provide any evidence of the killing of the deceased by any of accused persons---------No evidence as to the actual commission of murder had been collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation---------When the Investigating Officer had collected the evidence of abduction of the deceased, then he ought to have collected evidence for commission of murder---------Accused persons at the time of getting recovered the dead body of the deceased had confessed to have murdered the deceased to his burial, but that part of statements of the prosecution witnesses being inadmissible, could not be read as an evidence---------Relying upon Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, only to the extent of discovered or recovered event could be taken into consideration; whereas the disclosure of accused could not be read as an evidence and simultaneously, could not be relied upon---------Conviction and sentence of accused persons under said provisions of law, was set aside but under Ss.364/201, P.P.C., was maintained and their appeal qua said charges was dismissed---------If the period of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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