| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1368 2017 SLD 1368 2017 SCMR 1710 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 314-L of 2009, decided on 12th May, 2017. Heard on: 12th May, 2017. (On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 18.11.2008 passed to Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2003, Criminal Revision No
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1. Mian Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.2. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 314-L of 2009, decided on 12th May, 2017. Heard on: 12th May, 2017. (On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 18.11.2008 passed to Criminal Appeal No. 211 of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2003, Criminal Revision No
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Sardar Abdul Majeed Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1. Mian Aftab Farrukh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No.2. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State.
MST. ANWAR BEGUM
VS
AKHTAR HUSSAIN ALIAS KAKA AND 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.----Ss. 302(b) & 34---.---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---.---Appeal against acquittal---.---Reappraisal of evidence---.---Occurrence took place at about 08.00 p.m., and allegedly on the same night formal FIR was registered at 08.45 p.m. i.e. within forty five minutes of the occurrence---.---Promptitude posed by the complainant in setting the machinery of law in motion was, however, negated from the other circumstances of the case as postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted on the next day---.---Furthermore, the prosecution witness who escorted the dead body to the mortuary stated in the opening sentence of his cross-examination that he remained in the mortuary during the whole night but neither the investigating officer nor any other police official came to him during the night till the postmortem, which clearly suggested that the relevant papers were not provided to the doctor---.---Both the witnesses of ocular account were chance witnesses and had no residence or place of business near the place of occurrence---.---Testimony of said chance witnesses remained uncorroborated and it was highly unsafe to rely upon their testimony---.---Medical evidence was not in line with the ocular account---.---Alleged recoveries of weapons at the instance of accused persons and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory to the extent of one of the accused was also inconsequential as the said report was not put to the accused persons while examining them under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---.---High Court had rightly acquitted the accused---.---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.----Ss. 302(b) & 34---.---Qatl-i-amd---.---Chance witness---.---Testimony of chance witness, reliance upon---.---Scope---.---In order to maintain conviction of a convict on capital charge on the basis of testimony of chance witnesses the court had to be at guard and corroboration was to be sought for relying upon such evidence. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---.--- ---.----S. 342---.---Examination of accused by the court---.---Scope---.---Piece of evidence not put to an accused while…
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