| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 79 2018 SLD 79 2018 SCMR 95 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr.A. No. 69-L of 2015 and Cr.P. No. 502-L of 2017, decision & hearing Date : 23-10-2017 On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Dated 19.03.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1997 and Order Dated 06.03.2017 passed by the
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE , SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Petitioner by: Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Advocate Supreme Court (in Crl. A. No. 69 of 2015). Rai M. Tufail Khan Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court (in Crl. P. No. 502 of 2017).
Respondent by:
Cr.A. No. 69-L of 2015 and Cr.P. No. 502-L of 2017, decision & hearing Date : 23-10-2017 On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Dated 19.03.2014 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1997 and Order Dated 06.03.2017 passed by the
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE , SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Petitioner by: Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal, Advocate Supreme Court (in Crl. A. No. 69 of 2015). Rai M. Tufail Khan Kharal, Advocate Supreme Court (in Crl. P. No. 502 of 2017).
Respondent by:
HAQ NAWAZ & OTHERS
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,148,149,302,382B
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution case depended on the statement of a witness who claimed to have not only heard the conspiracy to murder the deceased but also allegedly saw the accused and co-accused strangle the deceased to death---Fact that the accused and co-accused allowed the witness to hear out the alleged conspiracy of committing murder and be a witness against them did not appeal to a prudent mind---Even if it was admitted that the witness was allowed to hear out the conspiracy being hatched, then as per the witness's own stance, she slept between 8 pm - 9 pm, therefore it was not understandable how she came to know of the alleged conspiracy being hatched by the accused and co-accused between 9.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight when she was already sleeping---Witness in question claimed that she witnessed the murder by peeping over a wall, but it was hard to believe why the accused and co-accused would let the witness go when she not only heard out the conspiracy but also witnessed the crime---After the occurrence witness remained at her parent's house for a period of 14 days but she did not tell anybody about the occurrence, and no explanation was given for such non-disclosure---Witness admitted before the Trial Court that her statement was recorded by the police after about two months of the occurrence---Witness in question admitted in her cross-examination that the relations between her family and that of the accused were not cordial---In such backdrop, the testimony of the witness did not inspire confidence---Prosecution was unable to prove its case against the accused and co-accused beyond reasonable doubt---Accused and co-accused were acquitted of the charge of murder in such circumstances. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE:---.--- Convict-appellants Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Hayat along with four others were indicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari to face trial in case FIR No. 126 dated 24.04.1994, offence under sections 302/148 read with section 149, P.P.C., registered at P.S. Sadar Vehari. On conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court…
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