Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 219 2017 SLD 219 2017 PLJ 14
Federal Shariat Court
Crl. Appeals No. 9/P, 51/I of 2012 and 1/P of 2013, decidedon 8.5.2015. heard on: 28.4.2015.
RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, CHEIF, JUSTICE AND DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Mr. Jalal-ud-Din Akbar-e-Azam Khan Gara, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 9/P of 2012).Mr. Mohy-ud-Din Malik, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 51/I of 2012).Mr. Ishtiaq Ahmad, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 1/P of 2013).Mr. Abdul

MUKAMIL SHAH & othersVSSAMI ULLAH & others

Law:

Section:

Delay in FIR------------Scope of----Belated examination of a witness by police may not be fatal to prosecution but where delay is unexplained, accused has not been named in FIR and circumstances justify that open FIR and delay have purposely been manoeuvred to name accused later, such managed delay and gaps adversely affected the prosecution case.2008 SCMR 1221, ref.Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VI of 197(------------S. 17(4)----"Harabah"----Conviction and sentence----Challenge to----Chance witness----If testimony of a chance witness finds corroboration from any other circumstance or from any other evidence in form of recoveries and medical evidence, then that can be relied upon----If a chance witness reasonably explains his presence at place of occurrence and states about occurrence in such a way that inspires confidence and it is also corroborated by any other evidence or circumstances, then same can be considered alongwith other circumstantial evidence----In present case witness had not explained his presence at place of occurrence, simply that he had come 2/3 days earlier to house of his brother and now suddenly had given statement against his brother shows his strange attitude----His statement is not corroborated by any other evidence----Contention of counsel for complainant that corroboration is available in form of recovery of rope and bag cannot be believed, for reason that those articles had earlier been recovered and after unexplained delay of a week statement of this witness was recorded so it cannot be said that witness had corroborated occurrence----If two recoveries of motor car and Nokia Mobile are kept aside then there is no motive for offence as to why accused/appellants killed the deceased----Conviction was illegal----Appeal was allowed.THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, CHEIF JUSTICE:---.--- This judgment is directed to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 9/P/2012 Mukamil Shah vs. Sami Ullah and the State, Criminal Appeal No. 51/I/2012 Mst. Ayesha Jehangir vs. The State and Sami Ullah, and Jail Criminal Appeal No. 1/P/2013 Bahadar Shah vs. SamiUllah and the State. All the three appeals arise out…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register