Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2151 2019 SLD 2151 2019 PLJ 1284
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 98-J of 2013, Criminal Appeal No. 643 of 2012, & Murder Reference No. 13 of 2016, heard on 13.02.2019.
SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, JUSTICE TARIQ SALEEM SHEIKH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Sheikh Muhammad Rahim and Syed Athar Hasan Shah Bukhari, Advocates
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, Deputy District Public Prosecutor Nemo

GHULAM MURTAZA AND ANOTHER

VS

STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,340(2),342,544A

Eye-witnesses-- ----It is settled by now that if the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved against some accused persons attributed effective role the same eye-witnesses cannot be believed against another accused with the same role unless those eye-witnesses received independent corroboration about the other accused. PLD 1985 SC 11, 2000 SCMR 1758 & 2008 SCMR 6, rel. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b)/34--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Place of occurrence was a street/thoroughfare--No independent witness was attracted to spot--Deceased himself had gone there on his motorbike--Eye-witnesses shifted deceased from place of occurrence to main road on auto rickshaw and then accompanied him to hospital--They stayed with deceased in hospital whole night--Witnesses raised no hue and cry--Their statements were at variance on some aspects--Complainant was not eye-witness--He reported incident to police at 01:00 p.m. eye-witness could justify their presence at crime scene nor had witnessed occurrence in view of their statements available on record--No document whatsoever showing admission of deceased in hospital, his stay in ICU Ward and then his examination under order of Magistrate itself is a circumstance which is sufficient to raise an eyebrow--Prosecution miserably failed to prove case against appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 2018 SCMR 772 & 2019 SCMR 129, ref. Benefit of doubt-- ----Principle--It is axiomatic principle of law that benefit of doubt is always extended in favour of accused--Case of prosecution if found to be doubtful then every doubt even slightest is to be resolved in favour of accused. 2018 SCMR 772, ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.- Ghulam Murtaza (appellant) alongwith Ghulam Mustafa and Muhammad Ramzan co-accused (since acquitted) were tried by the learned. Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan, in case F.I.R. No. 1129 of 2008 dated 26.12.2008, under Sections 302/34 PPC, registered at Police Station New Multan, District Multan. At the conclusion of the trial, vide judgment dated 18.07.2012, the learned, trial Court held the appellant Ghulam Murtaza guilty, convicted him under…
🔒
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