Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302

Law: Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)

Section: 13D

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 154,160,161,173,342,382-B,544-A

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(a)

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Prosecution---Duty and function of---Prosecution, primarily was bound to establish guilt against accused without shadow of reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence for conviction of accused person; from the evidence if it came to the conclusion that the charges so imputed against accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then accused would become entitled to acquittal. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13-D---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Way and manner, the prosecution witness had painted the picture of the crime, spoke a lot that he was not at all the witness of crime, but a chance witness---Presence of said witness on the day of incident at the venue of occurrence had created doubt---Prosecution witness, did not disclose the role of any of the accused in the identification parade before the Magistrate---When no role had been assigned to accused by said witness, then such identification parade had lost its evidentiary value in the eye of law---Prosecution witness had made mala fide and dishonest improvements---Said conduct of making such improvements had rendered him absolutely unreliable witness, who had no respect for truth and/or was capable of telling lie and changing his statement as and when it suited him---Crime empty was kept in the Police Station for about four months; no explanation in that regard had been offered as to why said crime empty was not dispatched immediately to the Forensic Science Laboratory after its recovery---Such unexplained delay, could not offer any corroboration to the ocular testimony, which had destroyed the evidentiary value of said piece of evidence---Prosecution had failed to prove the presence of eye-witness at the scene of occurrence; whose presence was also not supported by the other witnesses---Ocular account of said eye-witness was conflicting with medical evidence---All said factors, pointed towards the real possibility that the murder in issue had…

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