| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 502 2017 SLD 502 2017 PCRLJ 246 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 20-J of 2013, 2117 of 2012, Criminal Revision No. 143 of 2013 and Murder Reference No. 16 of 2013, heard on 17th May, 2016
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE, MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Usman Naseem and Munir Hussain Bhatti for Appellant No.1 (in Crl. Appeal No. 20-J of 2013). Imtiaz Hussain Bhatti and Malik Shahzad Awan, defence counsel for Appellants (in Crl. Appeal No.2117 of 2012). Miss Maleeha Athar for the Complainant. Muhammad
Criminal Appeals Nos. 20-J of 2013, 2117 of 2012, Criminal Revision No. 143 of 2013 and Murder Reference No. 16 of 2013, heard on 17th May, 2016
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, JUSTICE, MIRZA VIQAS RAUF, JUSTICE
Usman Naseem and Munir Hussain Bhatti for Appellant No.1 (in Crl. Appeal No. 20-J of 2013). Imtiaz Hussain Bhatti and Malik Shahzad Awan, defence counsel for Appellants (in Crl. Appeal No.2117 of 2012). Miss Maleeha Athar for the Complainant. Muhammad
SARFRAZ ALIAS SAFRI AND OTHERS --AppellantS
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER --RespondentS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 353, 186, 412, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity, rioting armed with deadly weapon and unlawfuly assembly, common object---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Allegation against accused persons was that they committed dacoity and made firing on police party when were encircled by the police and also committed murder of police official---Prosecution produced as many as four witnesses to prove the guilt of accused---One prosecution witness did not utter even a single word about the accused---Other prosecution witness had stated that arrested accused had disclosed the name of co-accused---Said circumstances had indicated that accused was previously not known to the prosecution witnesses but the FIR was lodged on the day of occurrence and accused was specifically named as one of the accused---Complainant and injured also appeared as prosecution witnesses and implicated the accused---Injured had joined the investigation after 26/27 days of the occurrence when for the first time, his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer---Prosecution failed to bring on record any material to the effect that injured/prosecution witness was unable to record his statement during the said period---Said prosecution witness had introduced certain material facts which were not available in his statement before the police---Same was the position of complainant---Circumstances suggested that evidence of complainant and injured person were the outcome of padding and dishonest improvement---No identification parade was conducted in order to affirm the identity of accused---Appeal was allowed in circumstances and accused were acquitted from the charges by extending benefit of doubt. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 353, 186, 412, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty,…
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