| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2760 2018 SLD 2760 2018 PCRLJ 140 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1355 and Criminal Revision No. 814 of 2009, decision & hearing Dated: 22-12-2017.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Ijaz Qutab
Respondent(s) by: Mrs. Tahira Parveen, Deputy District Public Prosecutor, Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman Mahar
Criminal Appeal No. 1355 and Criminal Revision No. 814 of 2009, decision & hearing Dated: 22-12-2017.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Ijaz Qutab
Respondent(s) by: Mrs. Tahira Parveen, Deputy District Public Prosecutor, Mian Qamar-uz-Zaman Mahar
EHSAN ULLAH AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 109,148,149,201,302
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 201, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Charge against the accused was that he along with co-accused committed murder of nephew of the complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was illicit relation of the deceased with the sister of the accused---Record showed that in the FIR, the complainant had not expressed any suspicion on anybody, which indicated that it was a blind murder which remained un-witnessed---Said case was investigated by three Investigating Officers, who all found the story of prosecution to be false and prepared discharge report---Said discharge report was not agreed by the Judicial Magistrate and challan/report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted on 18.9.2006---Being dissatisfied with the investigation, the complainant instituted private complaint on 18.12.2006, after eight months and three days of registration of FIR and eight months and nine days after the occurrence---If the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome of all the three successive investigations, why he had taken such a long time to bring his stance through the present private complaint---Circumstances suggested that complainant had consumed time to cook up a false and frivolous story after due deliberation as well as consultation under legal advice at belated stage---Accused was not named in the FIR, but he had been introduced in the case for the first time along with his co-accused on 13.7.2006 after about two months and twenty-eight days of the registration of case through an application---No source of information had been disclosed by the complainant in the said application as to how he came to know about involvement of the accused in the murder of the nephew of complainant---Such application without source of knowledge had got no value in the eyes of law---Prosecution witnesses had deposed that the deceased was last seen by them in the company of co-accused persons, who were acquitted by the Trial Court, therefore, their…
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