Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2828 2018 SLD 2828 2018 PLJ 865
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 703-J & Crl. Rev. No. 116 of 2009, heard on 28.02.2018.
ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Badar Raza Gilani, Advocate, Miss. Asma Khan, Advocate for Complainant.
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Iftikhar-ul-Haq, Addl. Prosecutor General

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF ETC.

VS

STATE ETC.

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

In-ordinate Delay-- ----Report to police--No plausible explanation--Benefit of doubt--This fact alone by itself indicates that story mentioned in crime report was an afterthought one and case was registered with due consultation, deliberation and fabrication and, thus, casts serious doubt in veracity of prosecution. 1995 SCMR 127 & 2011 SCMR 1473, ref. Eye-witnesses-- ----Presence--At venue of occurrence--Relevant time--Eye-witnesses remained silent--Doubts--None of claimed eye-witnesses had intervened to rescue deceased and had not received any injury during occurrence especially when none of accused persons was armed with any fire arm weapon, which could have scared witnesses away--In such circumstances, presence of both claimed eye-witnesses at venue of occurrence, at relevant time, is not free from doubt especially when deceased, complainant and eye-witnesses remained silent for about 02-days in reporting matter to police. 2008 SCMR 95, ref. Chance Witness-- ----Doubtful--Settled principle by now is that once presence of a chance witness is found to be doubtful, same is sufficient to discard testimony as a whole. 2017 SCMR 596, rel. Identical Role-- ----Co-accused--Acquittal of charge--When co-accused, having identical role, had been acquitted of charge on same set of witnesses by disbelieving prosecution evidence to their extent, same cannot be relied upon to extent of remaining accused persons, in absence of any independent corroboration. 2016 SCMR 1763, ref. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Eye-witnesses--Independent source of evidence--Medical evidence--No support occular account--Role of co-accused was identical--Having scanned entire prosecution evidence, a conclusion is inescapable that prosecution has failed to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable shadow of doubt--Claimed eye-witnesses had appeared and adduced evidence, which could not qualify to be a true account as they had improved their version and changed entire prosecution story with regard to number and nature of injuries sustained by deceased, names and roles played by appellants during…
🔒
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