| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 3084 2018 SLD 3084 2018 YLR 91 |
Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 26-09-2017.
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Khaliq
Respondent(s) by: Amjad Hussain
AMIR YAHYA
VS
SYED ALAM AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302
Law: Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)
Section: 13
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302---Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for the murder of brother of complainant---Ocular account was furnished by sole prosecution witness---Accused was not nominated in the FIR---Complainant had stated that he reached the place of occurrence within twenty minutes of the occurrence but he had no knowledge about the culprits---Prosecution witness, had claimed to be the first person to reach place of occurrence because of his house being adjacent to the place of incident---Said witness did not report the matter to the police, though the police station was at the distance of about four furlong nor he informed the complainant---Complainant had not mentioned the presence of said witness at the place of occurrence; likewise said witness had not stated about the arrival of complainant at the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer had stated that he recorded the statements of all the prosecution witnesses on the day of occurrence whereas, eye-witness stated that his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by the police two days after the occurrence---First Information Report reflected that the complainant lodged the FIR against some unknown assailants after removal of dead body to his house---Names of witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR---Statements of complainant and sole eye-witness ran counter to each other and could not be reconciled in any manner---Postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was not conducted, which was a lacuna in the prosecution case---Weapon used in the commission of offence had not been sent to expert for opinion---Therefore, evidence of recovery was of no avail to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the ocular evidence was sketchy and doubtful, and could not be accepted---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Non-conducting of postmortem---Effect---Non-conducting of postmortem was not fatal if the ocular evidence was consistent and reliable. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---…
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