Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 996 2017 SLD 996 2017 PLJ 249
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. Appeal No. 402 & 403 of 2013, decided on 14.12.2016. Date of hearing: 29.11.2016. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 15.6.2009 passed by Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. A. No. 615 of 2003)
GULZAR AHMED, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 402/2013). Mrs. Bushra Qamar, ASC and Mrs. Tasneem Ameen, AOR (absent) for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 403/2013). Mrs. Bushra Qamar, ASC and Mrs. Tasneem Amee

SARDAR BIBI & OTHERS --AppellantS

VS

MUNIR AHMED ETC., --RespondentS

Law:

Section:

Recovery of Crime Empty-- ----Scope--No specific weapon was shown--So recovery is inconsequential and cannot be considered as corroborative piece of evidence. Recovery of Toka-- ----Joint house--Such recovery was effective after about one month of occurrence and prosecution witness admitted that place of recovery was collectively inhabited by all accused so place of recovery is a joint house and was not in exclusive possession of accused--Allegedly, recovery was effected after about one month of occurrence and it is not expected from an accused person to keep such weapon (stained with blood) as souvenir because during period there was ample time to destroy or at least washout said weapon--Toka was recovered from behind door of a house which according to PW was collectively inhabited by many persons. Ocular account-- ----Recovery was made from exclusive knowledge and possession--Appreciation of evidence--Recovery was made from exclusive knowledge and possession of accused--So no reliance can be placed to such recovery and High Court had wrongly considered such doubtful recoveries as corroborative piece of evidence to unreliable ocular account. Specific motive-- ----Acquitted due to compromise--It is quite clear that appellants and their co-accused had no motive or reason to commit murder of deceased persons and asserted motive has not been proved. Delay in FIR-- ----Secondary evidence--Postmortem of dead body--Suspension--Although, secondary evidence has been produced to extent of I.O. but prosecution did not establish, by producing constable, who made report that witness had gone abroad--Due to said reason, defence was deprived of valuable right to cross-examine said I.O. through whom all facts and circumstances favoring accused could have been brought on record. Identification-- ----Source of light bulb was not taken into possession during investigation--So identification of assailants was also doubtful in such circumstances of case. Ocular account-- ----Chance witness-Witnesses of ocular account are closely related to deceased and were chance witnesses as their places of residence were far away from spot--They could not establish their presence at place of…
🔒
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