| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1545 2018 SLD 1545 2018 YLR 1481 |
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 18 of 2011, decision Dated: 31-05-2017. Hearing Date : 30-05-2017.
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, JUSTICE, NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JUSTICE
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Appellant. Ameer Zaman Jogizai, Prosecutor General for the State.
SHAH BAKHSH
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Circumstantial evidence---Prosecution case was that appellant's wife and complainant's sister-in-law came to her parent's house along with her father-in-law, and found the house locked---Lock was broken and discovered the dead bodies of her parents along with that of a minor---Accused was charged for the murder of three persons---Record showed that complainant had narrated in the report that he talked to accused on the phone of his deceased father-in-law while he was in the house of deceased, which established the presence of accused in the house of deceased---Said narration was omitted by the complainant in his statement recorded before the court---Said portion of statement was dishonestly omitted by the complainant despite the fact that his minor son aged about 8/9 years was cold bloodedly murdered in the same occurrence---Investigating Officer had failed to get the Call Data Record of the deceased and the complainant---Investigating Officer did not procure the Call Data Record of the accused which could have established the presence of accused at the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer had failed to collect finger prints from the blood-stained articles and did not send the said articles for chemical analysis---Complainant had admitted in cross-examination that close relatives of the deceased resided in the neighboring vicinity but neither any close relative of the deceased nor anyone else was examined as witness of last seen evidence in respect of presence of the accused in the house of deceased at the relevant time---Circumstances had established that evidence had totally been shattered only because of grave criminal negligence of the Investigating Officer---Accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 39---Qatl-i -amd---Appreciation of evidence---Disclosure by accused---Admissibility---Disclosure memo of accused and memo of pointation of place of occurrence would be of no avail to the prosecution's case when the…
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