| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 760 2019 SLD 760 2019 SCMR 274 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 62-L of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 27-11-2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 27.05.2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 1543 of 2010, Crl. Revision No. 277 of 2013 and PSLA No. 7 of 2013)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Naveed Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.G.
Criminal Appeal No. 62-L of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 27-11-2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 27.05.2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 1543 of 2010, Crl. Revision No. 277 of 2013 and PSLA No. 7 of 2013)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Naveed Ahmad Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.G.
ALTAF HUSSAIN
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,302(b),324,336,337-F(iv)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence--- Delay in reporting matter to police and lodging of FIR---Present case was registered under the orders of the Justice of the Peace on 19.03.2006 regarding an occurrence alleged to have taken place on 09.02.2006 and as such there was a delay of forty days in reporting the crime to the police without any plausible explanation---Complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that they reported the matter to the police repeatedly but the case was not registered, however, such assertion was not substantiated by any document---Deceased was medically examined in injured condition through police on 9.2.2006 i.e. the date of occurrence, therefore, the inordinate delay in setting the machinery of law in motion spoke volumes against the veracity of prosecution version---Doctor who had examined the deceased was not produced before the court---Motive behind the occurrence and alleged recovery of a dagger at the instance of the accused were not believed by the courts below for valid reasons---Besides the accused three other co-accused persons were also indicted in the case, who were acquitted by the Trial Court and appellate court and their acquittal had attained finality---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence doubtful---Ocular account of the incident was furnished by the complainant and another eye-witness, however, perusal of statement made by deceased before his death did not disclose their presence at the scene of occurrence, therefore, it was highly unsafe to rely on the statements of both these witnesses to maintain conviction and sentence of the accused on a capital charge---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Witnesses,…
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