Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2796 2017 SLD 2796 2017 PLD 774
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 76-J of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 113 of 2010 heard on 14-01-2016.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Abdul Qayyum Khan
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Waqas Anwar, D.P.G. with Qaiser Qureshi, S.I.

ZEESHAN ALIAS SHANI

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant, who was material witness, was not produced by the prosecution, despite adopting of coercive measures by the Trial Court---Name of accused and his co-accused came on the surface during the course of investigation by recording supplementary statement of complainant, allegedly on the same day, but said material witness was withheld without any cogent reason---All prosecution witnesses made flagrant improvements in their statements by nominating accused and his co-accused and assigning specific role, which were not recorded in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.; contradictions existed in the statements of said witnesses---Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded at belated stage in order to involve accused in the case---Autopsy in the case was not carried out soon after death of the deceased---Medical evidence adduced by prosecution was not corroborating ocular account furnished by prosecution witnesses---Complainant, did not give the description and salient features of the assailants; same was the position of testimony of prosecution witness of ocular account---When accused were not nominated in the FIR, identification parade was necessary, but no such parade was conducted---Recovery of pistol, was of no help to the prosecution, as recovery witnesses, did not corroborate each other---Prosecution, had to prove its case against accused by standing on its own legs and it could not take any benefit from weakness of the defence case, but prosecution failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Single circumstance, which would create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case, was sufficient to give benefit of the same to accused---Present case was replete with circumstances which had created serious doubts about the prosecution case---Prosecution had failed to produce cogent, reliable, trustworthy and sure footed evidence to prove, heads of charge against accused---Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, were set aside, accused was acquitted of the charges levelled…
🔒
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