| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2424 2016 SLD 2424 2016 SCMR 1605 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 236-L of 2009, decided on 14th January, 2016. (Against the judgment Dated 30-9-2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2004 and Murder Reference No. 637 of 2004)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No. 236-L of 2009, decided on 14th January, 2016. (Against the judgment Dated 30-9-2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1441 of 2004 and Murder Reference No. 637 of 2004)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD SALEEM
VS
SHABBIR AHMED AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Criminal trial--- ----Murder---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused was alleged to have murdered his wife with the assistance of co-accused persons---Occurrence had taken place during a night and according to the FIR the culprits had remained unknown at the spot---FIR had been lodged by the complainant upon information supplied to him by the deceased's mother but the mother had not been able to identify any of the culprits at the time of the occurrence---Before the Trial Court deceased's mother had improved her version and had implicated accused, who was also her son-in-law and claimed that co-accused persons in connivance with the accused maneouvered the murder of deceased---No evidence had been produced before the Trial Court regarding hatching of any conspiracy by accused---Witness of last seen evidence was closely related to the complainant and to the deceased's mother and the conduct displayed by him was nothing but unusual detracting from the veracity of his statement---Witness before whom the accused allegedly made an extra-judicial confession made significant improvements before the Trial Court and had also made certain contradictory statements---Medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail because the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed---Weapon used in commission of crime had allegedly been recovered from a place which was open and accessible to all and, thus, it was unsafe to place reliance upon such recovery---Apart from that no one had seen accused firing at the deceased and, thus, mere recovery of a weapon of offence matching with a crime-empty was not sufficient to provide corroboration to the other pieces of circumstantial evidence---Whether weapon of offence had been kept in the mal-khana safely after its recovery and its dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory was not proved by any witness before Trial Court---High Court had rightly concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused and co-accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and had, thus, acquitted them of the charge---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed by the Supreme Court accordingly. THIS JUDGMENT…
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