| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 2418 2018 SLD 2418 2018 PCRLJ 1633 |
Cr. A. No. 21-M of 2014, decision Dated: 20-02-2018. Hearing Date : 19-02-2018.
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, JUSTICE ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
Sher Muhammad Khan for Appellants. Sahibzada Bahauddin for the State. Fazli Ghafoor for
Respondent No. 2.
MUHAMMADULLAH AND ANOTHERS
VS
THE STATE THROUGH ADDITIONAL ADVOCATEGENERAL AND ANOTHERS
Law:
Section: 154,161
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report was lodged by the accused---Effect---First Information Report by itself was not a substantive piece of evidence unless its contents were affirmed on oath and the maker thereof was subjected to the test of cross-examination---Registration of FIR at the instance of accused was a confession before police which being extra-judicial in nature, was not admissible in evidence against accused. Muhammad Saleh v. The State PLD 1965 SC 366; Muhammad Bakhsh v. The State PLD 1956 SC 420; Nasar Ali v. The State of Utarparadesh AIR 1957 SC 366 and Ghaus Muhammad alias Ghausa and another v. The State 1979 SCMR 155 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 161---Statements of witnesses recorded at belated stage---Scope---Statement of the prosecution witnesses were recorded after 13/14 days of the occurrence---No plausible explanation had been given by prosecution as to why such statements were recorded at such a belated stage---Statement of such witnesses could not be relied upon. Rahat Ali v. The State 2017 SCMR 584 and Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Prosecution case was that sister-in-law of the accused persons and her alleged paramour/son of prosecution witness were reported to have been done to death by the accused persons for their illicit relations after they were found together in a room during night---Father of the deceased, had introduced the last seen evidence against co-accused, while describing the motive in his statement, he stated that he had a dispute with accused persons over the boundary line of land and they had threatened him for dire consequences and due to said reason, accused persons murdered his son---If the accused persons had allegedly threatened the father of deceased for dire consequences, then departure of the deceased at night with co-accused seemed to be very strange and ridiculous---In the present…
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