| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1009 2018 SLD 1009 2018 PCRLJ 237 |
Lahore High Court
Cr.A. No. 471 and Murder Reference No. 71 of 2013, heard on 2-03-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Hussain Chaudhry for the Complainant. Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG with Majid, A.S.I for the State.
Cr.A. No. 471 and Murder Reference No. 71 of 2013, heard on 2-03-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellants. Muhammad Hussain Chaudhry for the Complainant. Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG with Majid, A.S.I for the State.
MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Allegations against accused persons were that they fired shots on deceased, which hit him on his neck and chin---Ocular account was furnished by real brothers of the deceased---Said witnesses reiterated the case set up in crime report---Allegedly, deceased was ploughing the land at 7.00 p.m., when accused-appellants committed his murder---No source of light was available at the place of occurrence---Dead body was not mentioned in column No. 24 of the inquest report nor there was any reference to any ploughing activity by the Investigating Officer in the brief notes of the case---FIR was eluded about arrival of the deceased at the scene on a tractor driven by himself---During investigation, one prosecution witness was introduced as owner of the tractor, who had actually ploughed the land but his reference was missing in the crime report and was given up as being unnecessary---Statement of said witness was recorded by the Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr.P.C., wherein he related a different story---Disclosure made by the said witness was incompatible with the case initially set up in the crime report and could not be brushed aside merely on the ground that narrative being hearsay was liable to be excluded from consideration---Evidence of said witness was more crucial to bring home the charge but he was given up---Admission of the Investigating Officer read in conjunction with Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 reinforced statutory presumption which benefited the accused-appellants---Exoneration of accused-appellants, though based upon ipse dixit of police warranted serious consideration, as he had been sentenced to irreversible penalty of death---Apparently, there were no compelling reason for the three real brothers to embroil one another in a horrendous but avoidable pursuit---After accused-appellant's departure from the scene, case against the co-accused would cast away, as both of them were inexorably placed in identical position---Recovery of Pistol with positive Forensic…
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