Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2825 2018 SLD 2825 2018 PLJ 843

Crl. Appeal No. 359 of 2013 & M.R. No. 51 of 2013, heard on 10.04.2018.
SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, JUSTICE ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Mudassar Altaf Qureshi, Advocate, Miss. Asma Khan, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Muhammad Ali Shahab, Deputy Prosecutor General

ALLAH DITTA

VS

STATE, ETC.

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),324,337F(v)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 410

Testimony of Witness-- ----Single doubt--Settled principle--Once there appears a single doubt as to presence of claimed eye-witness at crime scene, it would be sufficient to discard his testimony as a whole. 2017 SCMR 596, ref. Motive-- ----Principle--Trite principle of law is that when a specific motive is put by prosecution, same has to be proved through independent source of evidence and in case of failure, prosecution has to face consequences and not accused. 2010 SCMR 97, rel. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337 F(v)--Criminal Procedure Code, (V of 1898), S. 410--Criminal appeal--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Duration between injuries and death was immediate whereas between death and post-mortem examination within 24-hours--Delay of 14-hours in conducting post-mortem examination of deceased indicates real possibility that time had been consumed by police as well as complainant for cooking up a false story and to manage eye-witnesses--Anyhow, dispatch of crime empties to office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency after arrest of appellant with delay of 27-days of its securing, renders it to be legally unacceptable and, thus, in circumstances recovery of weapon of offence from appellant remained inconsequential--Having scanned entire prosecution evidence, we could not find any iota of evidence to connect appellant with murder in issue--Claimed eye-witnesses could not make consistence statement and we have found certain material contradictions, which were sufficient to change fate of case--Complainant had himself disputed place of occurrence in his statement before trial Court contrary to other eye-witnesses by shifting dead body of deceased from place of occurrence within ten minutes--Contradictory statement of complainant as well as injured witness with regard to place of occurrence i.e. inside or outside appellant's house as well as injury sustained by PW during occurrence renders them to be false witnesses--PW was a chance witness being resident of some other place and he could not establish any reason whatsoever to be present there at relevant time, which renders him to be not a truthful…
🔒
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