Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2236 2018 SLD 2236 2018 PLJ 651
Lahore High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 323-J and M.R. No. 392 of 2012, decision & hearing Dated: 12.04.2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE
Ms. Sheeba Qaisar, Ms, Saiqa Javed & Ch. Zahid Rasool, Advocates for Appellants. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Bhatti, Advocate for Complainant. Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, D.P.G., Punjab for State.

SHAKEEL AHMAD AND ANOTHER

VS

STATE AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Prosecution narrative, notwithstanding, very genesis of case is suspect to say least--Deceased's departure with appellant in middle of a specially arranged consultation meeting without taking witnesses into confidence with regard to its purpose and reason is mind boggling; it could have been deferred for a while, as apparently there was no urgency involved--Similarly, there is no logical basis as to why witnesses got concerned so as to follow deceased, shortly after he left them, particularly when he asked them to await his return so as to conclude discussion--Witnesses' arrival at crime scene in absence of any information shared by deceased with them about his detour and that too exactly at a point of time when he came under assault is really intriguing; it is a sheer coincidence; such coincidences seldom occur--It is hard to believe that four accused, variously armed and hell-bent upon deceased, tooth and nail, would keep outer door opened to allow a smooth entry by witnesses to view crime and then return unscathed--only irresistible conclusion, to be possibly drawn, is that deceased did not confront his torturous death in manner as alleged in crime report--There was no necessity for accused to undertake such an elaborate exercise, if at all, they had to commit murder by exposing themselves to witnesses--A vaguely formulated non-specific motive is not commensurate with magnitude of violence inflicted upon deceased, Medical Officer noted incised as well as firearm wounds with extensive damage to head; same motive was available to them qua complainant; only role-assigned to appellant is possibly an incised wound inflicted with a dagger on back of left chest, however, Investigating Officer recovered pistol and sickle from appellant; remainder of injuries are assigned to co-accused, not only exonerated by Investigating Officer but acquitted from charge by Court as well--Evidence disbelieved qua majority of accused attributed heavier roles cannot sustain charge against appellant, blamed for solitary dagger blow--No amount of corroboration can fill up…
🔒
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