| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2909 2018 SLD 2909 2018 PLJ 600 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. Petition No. 58 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 02.01.2018. (Against the judgment Dated 3.11.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 152 of 2010).
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
Respondent(s) by: Nemo
Crl. Petition No. 58 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 02.01.2018. (Against the judgment Dated 3.11.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 152 of 2010).
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Aftab Alam Yasir, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
Respondent(s) by: Nemo
MUHAMMAD ALAM
VS
STATE THROUGH PROSECUTOR GENERAL PUNJAB, ETC.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), S. 417--Appeal against acquittal--Delay in FIR and post-mortem--Recovery of fire-arm--Benefit of doubt--Reason stated by complainant party for going place of respondent/accused, neither plausible nor established through any independent evidence--FIR had been lodged with a significant (delay) and post mortem conducted on next day--Recovery of fire arm affected from a bush, near place of occurrence and not from an exclusive custody of respondent/accused--Co-accused of Respondent No. 2 had been acquitted by trial Court--Leave to appeal was refused. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE- We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the relevant record of the case with his assistance. 2. According to the FIR it was the complainant party of this case which had gone to the place whereat Respondent No. 2 and his co-accused were present. The reason stated by the complainant party for going to the place of Respondent No. 2 and others was neither plausible nor the same had been established through any independent evidence. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution were related/ connected to the deceased and they had failed to bring anything on the record to establish the stated reason for…
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