| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1610 2020 SLD 1610 2020 1350 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 48 and Murder Reference No. 7 of 2018, decision Dated: 05-09-2019, hearing Date : 30-07-2019.
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JUSTICE
Bangul Mari for Appellant. Ali Ahmad and Yasir Hayat for the Complainant. Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 48 and Murder Reference No. 7 of 2018, decision Dated: 05-09-2019, hearing Date : 30-07-2019.
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JUSTICE ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JUSTICE
Bangul Mari for Appellant. Ali Ahmad and Yasir Hayat for the Complainant. Abdul Latif Kakar, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
JUMA GUL
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---"Ocular" and "medical" evidence---Contradiction---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by firing---Material infirmities followed by contradictions existed in the statements of the prosecution witnesses---Record was silent in respect of information advanced to the police and in that regard all the witnesses narrated differently and were not supporting each other---Statement of three witnesses revealed that complainant was not present at the time of occurrence---Medico Legal Certificate transpired that the corpse was brought to hospital by his brother along with two persons in a private vehicle---If the deceased was taken by the Police Official in absence of any close relative to the hospital then the presence of close relative at the occurrence could not be believed---Eye-witnesses had deposed that appellant had fired on deceased from outside the boundary of the hut---Site plan showed that the occurrence had taken place inside the boundary wall and no hut outside the boundary wall was shown in the site plan---Even the presence of eye-witnesses had not been shown in the site plan---Site plan showed that the firing was made upon the deceased from the close distance while the Medical Officer in his cross-examination suggested that on making fire from close distance tattoo/burning mark appeared on the body---No burning mark was found on the wound of the deceased---Admittedly, there existed enmity between the parties---Eye-witnesses being brothers, mother and sisters of the deceased were interested witnesses and inimical to the appellant---Rule of prudence demanded that there must be independent corroboration of interested and inimical witnesses---Capital punishment on the basis of such statement was not safe---Record transpired that the blood-stained cloth was handed over to the Investigating Officer after two days of occurrence but as per Medico Legal Certificate, the deceased was brought to hospital by police on the day of occurrence---Question arose as to why the complainant handed over the blood-stained clothes…
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