| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1068 2019 SLD 1068 2019 PLJ 132 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. A. No. 92-L of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 10.09.2018. (On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 18.11.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1133/2011, CSR No. 23-T/2011).
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, DPG, Punjab
Crl. A. No. 92-L of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 10.09.2018. (On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 18.11.2014, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1133/2011, CSR No. 23-T/2011).
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, DPG, Punjab
MUHAMMAD ABID
VS
STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302,302(b),365(a)
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(a)(e)
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 365(a) & 302(b)--Acquittal of--Last seen evidence--Appellant was convicted and sentenced to death u/Ss. 365-A, 302(b), P.P.C. and 7(a),(e) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997--According to statement of PW, appellant is last seen with victim while renting a motorcycle from his shop and then according to same witness appellant returns motorcycle same day, this time victim is not with him--On same day, he again rents motorcycle and to return it limited window could be probable time of crime in order to complete continuous chain of events, but there is no evidence to establish this--According to FIR call received by complainant, demanding ransom in return for victim and as per statement of complainant he received a similar call--Both calls imply that victim was alive at time--Advanced stage of putrefaction as described in Post Mortem Report begins five to ten days or more after death, therefore, possibility of death of victim cannot be ruled out--Inquest Report is noticeably a month before recovery of dead body--Nothing is on record to show that prosecution had moved trial Court or any authority for correction of this date--Statement of complainant refers to telephone calls by an unknown person--There is no evidence on record to establish that these calls were received by complainant and were linked to appellant--Recovery memo of mobile of accused carries a SIM different from number of unknown caller mentioned in FIR--It is, however, unimaginable that a person repeatedly demanding ransom has actually already murdered victim--This also demolishes motive of kidnapping for ransom--bank notes of ransom amount were not marked or signed by any Magistrate, hence its alleged recovery by Police becomes suspect--The facts do not draw up a chain of uninterrupted events connecting accused with alleged murder--Last seen evidence and its constituents i.e., probability, cause and connection seem to be missing in this case--Appellant is, acquitted of charge. Last Seen Evidence-- ---Theory of last seen together is one where two persons are 'seen together' alive and after an interval of time, one of them is found alive and other dead--If…
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