Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 1832 2017 SLD 1832 = 2017 PLD 737
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 311, 412 and Murder Reference No. 117of 2012, hearing Date : 08-06-2016.
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JUSTICE, AALIA NEELUM, JUSTICE
Muhammad Arshad Bhatti for Appellants.Muhammad Ikhlaq Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

YASIR ALI & OTHERSVSTHE STATE & ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay about ten days in lodging FIR---Complainant had not advanced any plausible justification as to why he kept mum for such a considerable span of time and did not inform the police about missing of deceased---Inordinate and unexplained delay in reporting the matter to police for lodging FIR cast serious doubt about the veracity of prosecution story--- Conviction and sentence recorded against accused was set aside. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.161---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Supplementary statement---Scope---Supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant immediately after registration of FIR, which was lodged with the delay of ten days---No reason had been explained for not straightway nominating the accused in the FIR---Ante-dated supplementary statement recorded at belated stage had no legal value---Conviction and sentence recorded against accused was set aside accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Prosecution witnesses stated that deceased was seen in the company of accused on the day of occurrence at evening time---According to the story of FIR, deceased was seen sitting at a tube well along with accused and deceased went towards place "M" after receipt of a mobile call---Departure of deceased in the company of accused did not qualify proximity of time and space so as to be treated as last seen evidence---Such fact was alone sufficient to demolish the evidence of last seen---Prosecution witnesses never tried to inquire from the accused about the missing of deceased---Prosecution witnesses did not get recorded their statements under S.161 Cr.P.C. before the investigating officer immediately after registration of FIR about such fact---Evidence of prosecution witnesses was not worthy of reliance---Conviction and sentence recorded against accused was set aside (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34-Qatl-i-amd, common…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register