Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1463 2018 SLD 1463 2018 YLR 1181

Criminal Appeals Nos. 60-J, 59-J, 506 of 2011, Cr. Rev. No. 335 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 2200 of 2015 and Murder Reference No. 186 of 2011, hearing Date : 17-10-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, SARDAR AHMAD NAEEM, JUSTICE
Muhammad Shaukat, Nighat Saeed Mughal and Usman Naseem, Defence Counsel for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 60-J of 2011). Ghulam Murtaza for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 59-J of 2011). Muhammad Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari and Ali Muhammad Zahid for the Complainant. Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari and Ali Muhammad Zahid for Appellants (in Criminal Appeals Nos.506 of 2011, 2200 of 2015 and Cr. Rev. No. 335 of 2011). Riaz Ahmad for
Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2011). Babar Siddique Mughal for
Respondent (in Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2011).

REHMAT ALI ALIAS REHMA AND OTHErs

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS

Law:

Section: 302, 324, 109, 419, 420, 427, 201, 148 & 149

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 109, 419, 420, 427, 201, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that complainant party coming from a function on a jeep driven by complainant was intercepted by the accused party, who were on a tractor trolley, opened fire hitting the said jeep from front, rear side and on left/right doors---Front and rear screen of the jeep were broken and occurrence was completed inside the jeep, as a result of which, three members of the complainant party died while four persons sustained injuries---Ocular account of the occurrence was furnished by three witnesses including complainant---Ocular testimony was not inspiring confidence as minute details of the occurrence were given by the witnesses---Record showed that tractor trolley in question was not taken into possession from any of the accused persons, but was recovered from a workshop---No blood was taken into possession from the jeep---Blood laid underneath cots was taken into possession whereupon deceased were laid thus place of occurrence was not convincingly established by the prosecution---Occurrence was allegedly committed within a few minutes, and it was humanly impossible to provide minute details in such a photographic manner or to assign the specific role and furnish detailed description of the same---Such description would show that prosecution had tried to rope accused persons---Lodging of FIR with the minutest details of the case ruled out the possibility of truthfulness, and narratives of the FIR suggested the exaggeration and improvements made by the eye-witnesses---Complainant sustained injuries during the occurrence, was sent to the hospital by his sons on their car, but neither said car was produced during the investigation nor taken into possession---Complainant claimed to have…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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