Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,201,302,302(b),365A,419,420

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 173,342,382B,544A,544A(2)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 40,73,78A,164

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Last seen evidence--- Scope---Requirements of last seen evidence is to prove that witness has seen the deceased in company of the accused and identifies accused in court or during identification parade or the witness claims to know accused otherwise from his credentials or his personal information. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-Amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of dead body and other material---Proof---Both accused persons faced trial and were convicted by Trial Court with one sentenced to death while the other for imprisonment for life---Prosecution did not produce maker of recording preserved in USB Storage before Trial Court nor investigating officer recorded statement of any person who had recorded video or prepared that USB Storage---Such was necessary evidence to be corroborated therefore, USB Storage had no evidentiary value for purpose of capital punishment---Such evidence could not be used even as incriminating material against other accused person---Evidence of Hotel Manager was also not in accordance with law to be considered as valid piece of evidence to be relied upon---Motive of occurrence was shrouded in mystery---SMS, CDR were not justified---Allegation of abduction was just an opinion of complainant---Even car allegedly used in incident was not linked in entire case---Recovery of dead body was disbelieved and complainant never disclosed details of jewelry at time of registration of FIR---Complainant tried to improve her case through supplementary statement in order to link the appellant with crime but no concrete evidence was brought on record---Place of recovery was already in knowledge of prosecution witness who had already reached at dead body prior to identification and pointing of dead body by one of the accused---House of one of accused remained open and inhabited and same house was used for four different occasions for purpose of recovery and same was not admissible in evidence---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as prosecution failed to discharge onus regarding murder, resultantly accused were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in…

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