Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2146 2019 SLD 2146 2019 PLJ 1325
Lahore High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 1574 of 2016 & Murder Reference No. 398 of 2016, heard on 06.05.2019.
SHEHRAM SARWAR CH, JUSTICE ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: by:Nemo
Respondent(s) by: Shafqat Parveen Mughal, Defence Counsel

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE

VS

STATE & ANOTHER

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 173,265(c),340(2),342

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Death sentence and payment of compensation--Challenge to--Allegations--Straight fire shot, landed on deceased aorta (shah rag)--Shifted to Hospital--Succumbed to injuries on reaching in Hospital--Motive behind occurrence was stated to be quarrel and clash of appellant with deceased and her husband--pivotal question, in this case, requiring its answer, in light of established principle for dispensation of criminal justice and for deciding criminal cases consisting upon direct evidence / eye witness account casting a foremost duty on prosecution to establish, while excluding all hypotheses of their being a chance witness, presence of witnesses at relevant time at place of occurrence besides proving that they had witnessed occurrence with their own eyes. Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (XLV of 1869)-- ----S. 302(b)--Convicted and sentenced--Challenge to--Motive of occurrence--Although motive has specifically been attributed to appellant yet prosecution remained fail to substantiate its version regarding same through trust worthy and confidence inspiring documentary evidence--Prosecution has not been able to prove charge of homicide death of deceased against appellant through cogent, convincing, reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring evidence--Evidence of complainant and eye witnesses has been shattered on almost all major aspects of case and their presence at venue of occurrence at relevant time has not been established--Motive as to what was actual cause of murder of deceased remained shrouded in mystery--Prosecution story as ascribed by claimed eye witnesses does not coincide with real facts of case--Held: It is also settle, principle by now that once their appears a single doubt as to presence of claimed eye witnesses at crime scene it would be sufficient to discard his testimony as a whole--In nutshell, appeal allowed, conviction and sentence awarded by trail Court was set aside and appellant was acquitted of charge by giving him benefit of doubt. 2017 SCMR 596, ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, J.- Through this single judgment, we propose to decide Criminal Appeal No.1574 of 2016…
🔒
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