Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2687 2018 SLD 2687 2018 PCRLJ 7
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 335, 418 of 2013 and Murder Reference No. 74 of 2013, heard on 16-01-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khari, Ch. Abid Hussain Chohan
Respondent(s) by: Naveed Ahmad Varraich, DDPP with Rizwan, S.-I.

ADNAN ILYAS AND OTHERS

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 297,302(b)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 297---Qatl-i-amd, trespassing on burial place---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused and co-accused (acquitted) were charged for the murder---Statement of complainant being based on hearsay was not of much consequence---Ocular account was furnished by witnesses---Both the witnesses claimed to have witnessed the occurrence and pointed their finger upon the accused as well as acquitted co-accused for having jointly inflicted torture upon the deceased---Record showed that witness of ocular account admitted that he never conveyed name of co-accused to the complainant---Said witness had been disbelieved by the Trial Court against the co-accused, placed inexorably in an identical position with that of the accused and thus independent corroboration was required to place reliance upon the testimony against the latter---No reference about the presence of witness of ocular account at the scene either in complaint or in the statement of other witness of ocular account---Said witness visited police station after four days of the occurrence to record his statement as eye-witness thereof---Silence of said witness for such period without explanation could not be accepted---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against present accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Accused was acquitted by setting aside his conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 297---Qatl-i-amd, trespassing on burial place---Appreciation of evidence---Motive, not proved---Complainant conspicuously sans reference to any specific motive for the crime, attributed to the accused---Complainant attempted to improve upon his case by introducing a motive of dispute over money, belatedly during the trial---Motive, therefore could not be pressed into service as independent corroboration against the accused for the reason that a massively improved statement in deviation to the earlier position was liable to exclusion---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside his conviction and sentence recorded by Trial Court. (c) Criminal trial---…
🔒
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