| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3018 2019 SLD 3018 2019 SCMR 1949 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 104-L of 2014 and 144-L of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 04-09-2019. (Against the judgment Dated 10.09.2012 and 11.09.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 859 and 1051 of 2008)
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record (in both cases) and Mushtaq Khan in person.
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab (in both cases).
Criminal Appeals Nos. 104-L of 2014 and 144-L of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 04-09-2019. (Against the judgment Dated 10.09.2012 and 11.09.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 859 and 1051 of 2008)
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record (in both cases) and Mushtaq Khan in person.
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab (in both cases).
RAJMEER KHAN AND ANOTHER
VS
NOOR-ULHAQ AND OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 148,149,302,324,337-D
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---Ss. 302 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Case of free fight---Cross-version FIRs---Both parties approaching court with unclean hands--- Cross-version of the same incident was advanced by the accused party on the same day and according to the said cross-version it was the complainant party which had aggressed against the accused party--- One person had died and two others were injured from the side of the complainant party of the present FIR and three persons belonging to the accused party had been injured in the same incident---In the present FIR case out of the six accused persons facing trial only one person, i.e. the present accused had been convicted and sentenced whereas in the cross-version FIR out of the seven accused persons only one person had been convicted and sentenced---Many of the acquitted accused persons from both the sides had been attributed active and effective roles but the stories in that regard had been disbelieved by the courts below---Both the parties had tried to hide the truth and to minimize their own roles---Truth regarding the occurrence was very heavily mixed with something which was untrue and both the parties had not approached the court with clean hands---In such circumstances it was impossible to discern the truth from a heap of falsehood and, thus, the court was left with no other option but to acquit the present accused by extending the benefit of doubt to him---Appeal was allowed, the convictions and sentences of the accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 337-D--- Jaifah--- Reappraisal of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---For acquitting the accused from the charge under S. 337-D, P.P.C. the High Court had observed that no report of an expert had been produced before the Trial Court and, thus, it was not medically clear as to whether the injury attracting the provisions of S. 337-D, P.P.C. sustained by the injured victim was a direct result of the injury caused by the accused to the victim or…
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