| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 964 2018 SLD 964 2018 YLR 370 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 188, 218 and Murder Reference No. 30 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 16-03-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellants. Nemo for the Complainant. Naveed Ahmad Warraich, DDPP with Mumtaz, S.I. for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 188, 218 and Murder Reference No. 30 of 2014, decision & hearing Dated: 16-03-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellants. Nemo for the Complainant. Naveed Ahmad Warraich, DDPP with Mumtaz, S.I. for the State.
ABDUL SATTAR AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i) & 34--Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-mudihah, damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused-appellants along with co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons made a straight fire hitting deceased persons---One of the accused gave multiple butt blows on the person of wife of one victim---Both the male victims succumbed to the injuries at the spot---Motive for the crime was that the accused-appellant was in occupation of ancestral land in excess of his share and both the deceased asked for their due share---Ocular account was furnished by complainant and injured---Record showed that investigative conclusion did not support the prosecution case set up in crime report as three co-accused had been exonerated during investigation---Co-accused/appellant had been independently convicted and sentenced for a fatal shot to one of the deceased---No weapon of crime was recovered as he was exonerated during investigation---Hypothesis of his innocence could not be brushed aside, as it was otherwise inconceivable that a father would let his son to join him in a pursuit with horrendous consequences when he himself could have accomplished the task---After departure of three out of four accused from the scene, accused-appellant could not be possibly convicted and sentenced without independent corroboration---Recovery of pistol from the accused was inconsequential in view of dispatched subsequent to his arrest---Accused was not assigned any harm to one of the deceased and thus, could not be convicted and sentenced in isolation with his co-accused---Alleged motive was not exclusively focused upon the accused, therefore the same could not be pressed into service as corroboration---Prosecution case was found fraught with doubts against co-accused/appellant, inexorable placed in the identical position, it could not be used against the accused-appellant on the ground that he had factually participated in the occurrence---Circumstances established that there was no independent corroboration against the accused/appellants, which created doubt in the prosecution case,…
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