| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2166 2019 SLD 2166 2019 PLJ 121 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 826 of 2011 & M. Ref. No. 60 of 2010, heard on 06.09.2016.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE CH. MUSHTAQ AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Tanveer Haider Buzdar, Advocate defence counsel and Mehar Afzal Hussain, Advocate Mr. Ahmad Raza, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab
Crl. Appeal No. 826 of 2011 & M. Ref. No. 60 of 2010, heard on 06.09.2016.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE CH. MUSHTAQ AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Tanveer Haider Buzdar, Advocate defence counsel and Mehar Afzal Hussain, Advocate Mr. Ahmad Raza, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab
MUHAMMAD KHALID
VS
STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 140
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Circumstantial evidence--Extra Judicial confession--Fate of prosecution case is hinged upon two pieces of circumstantial evidence comprising of last seen and extrajudicial confession--The child was seen leaving home while playing with kids into lane by complainant and other family members whereas according to appellant and co-accused were driving deceased on a motorbike towards link canal--It is hard to disbelieve that would make a false statement against his real brother, as blood is thicker than water, nonetheless, in dispensation of criminal justice, mere credentials or status of a witness cannot form basis for acceptance of his testimony; divides, acrimony and misplaced suspicions within families are not unusual phenomena, therefore, evidence of extrajudicial confession furnished by witnesses warrants scrutiny and examination on touchstone of probability, notwithstanding, inter-se relationship between appellant and witnesses--Both accused have been shown to have made confession in a joint session and as such a joint disclosure cannot be read in evidence to their detriment--Yet another question mark is as to why appellant would make his breast clean when there was no evidence to even obliquely frame him with charge--Statements of PWs are not in line with each other; according to former, they were present inside house of however, in his narrative, there is no mention about presence of when confession was allegedly made whereas according to latter, he was present when appellant confessed his guilt--It is again intriguing as to why witnesses let off subdued appellant accompanied by his juvenile co-accused, particularly when his brother was present there--Story of extrajudicial confession is seemingly a usual exercise undertaken by police invariably in every case lacking direct evidence--Similarly, statement of is beside point--Pointing out of place of occurrence and a memo--in support thereof do not constitute disclosure within contemplation of Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahdat Order, 1984--In a case structured upon circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to…
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