| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1376 2018 SLD 1376 2018 SCMR 1051 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 80-L of 2016 and Criminal Misc. No. 37-L of 2018 and Criminal Petition No. 151-L of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 02-04-2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 11.12.2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 80-L of 2016 and Criminal Misc. 37-L of 2018). Syed Tayyab Mehmood Jafari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 151-L of 2016). M. Jaffar, Addit
Criminal Petition No. 80-L of 2016 and Criminal Misc. No. 37-L of 2018 and Criminal Petition No. 151-L of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 02-04-2018. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 11.12.2015 passed in Crl. Appeal No.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 80-L of 2016 and Criminal Misc. 37-L of 2018). Syed Tayyab Mehmood Jafari, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 151-L of 2016). M. Jaffar, Addit
UMER KHURSHEED AND ANOTHER
VS
SYED TUFAIL AHMAD AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---First Information Report (FIR) for the incident was lodged with a delay of more than 18 hours---Private complaint was instituted by the complainant after more than 9 months of the occurrence---Security guard who worked at the place of occurrence was not cited as a witness in the FIR, but was introduced by the complainant for the first time in his private complaint---Trial Court had provided valid reasons for disbelieving said witness---Three other alleged witnesses cited in the private complaint were given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary---In his cross examination alleged star eye-witness stated that despite the fact that police station was at a 5 minutes walking distance from the place of occurrence, he did not report the matter to the police---As per stance of said witness, when the accused made a second fire at him, he ran for his life and took shelter in a nearby school, but during trial he did not disclose the name of the school---Said witness admitted in his examination in chief that he did not take the deceased to the hospital in injured condition and that he did not know as to who had taken the deceased to the hospital---Strangely said witness hired a rickshaw after the occurrence to go to a hospital when his car was available and parked at the place of occurrence---Prosecution failed to bring on record any medical certificate which could substantiate the stance of said eye-witness that after the occurrence he was medically treated at a hospital---Facts also showed that it was improbable that the statement of said eyewitnesses would have been recorded by the police on the night of occurrence prior to the registration of FIR---Presence of said eyewitness at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was not free from doubt and his conduct was highly improbable---Motive behind the occurrence had already been disbelieved by the Trial court and even the High Court had not given any definite finding qua the same---Recovery of revolver at the instance of the accused was also disbelieved by the Trial Court valid reasons as crime empties and the revolver were sent to…
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