| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2352 2019 SLD 2352 2019 PLJ 355 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated:13.02.2018. (Against the judgment Dated 22.02.2016 passed bythe Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi inCriminal Appeal No. 372 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 69of 2011).
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas, ASC, Mrs. Rubina Mahmood Khan, ASC, Mr. S.A. Mehmood Khan
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab
Crl. A. No. 206 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated:13.02.2018. (Against the judgment Dated 22.02.2016 passed bythe Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi inCriminal Appeal No. 372 of 2011 and Murder Reference No. 69of 2011).
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Raja Ikram Ameen Minhas, ASC, Mrs. Rubina Mahmood Khan, ASC, Mr. S.A. Mehmood Khan
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Muhammad Jaffar, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab
MST. NAZIA ANWARVSSTATE, ETC.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 375,382B
Motive-- ----The law is settled by now that if the prosecution asserts a motive but fails to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence of death passed against a convict on the charge of murder. 2011 SCMR 593; 2011 SCMR 1165; 2012 SCMR 267; 2013 SCMR 782; 2013 SCMR 1554; 2013 SCMR 1602; 2014 SCMR 1464; 2014 SCMR 1658; 2016 SCMR 2035; 2017 SCMR 148 ref. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Motive was based upon borrowing of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- by the appellant from the deceased and on the issue of repayment of that loan a heated exchange had taken place between the appellant "and the deceased--Complainant (PW2) was the only witness produced by the prosecution--After going through the entire record of the case from cover to cover and after attending to different aspects of this case Court have found that although it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant was responsible for the murder of the deceased yet the story of the prosecution has many inherent obscurities ingrained therein--It is intriguing as to why the appellant would bring her four months old baby-boy to the spot and put the baby-boy on the floor and then start belabouring the deceased with a dagger in order to kill her--Court have, thus, entertained no manner of doubt that the real cause of occurrence was something different which had been completely suppressed by both the parties to the case and that real cause of occurrence had remained shrouded in mystery--Such circumstances of this case have put me to caution in the matter of the appellant's sentence and in the peculiar circumstances of the case Court have decided to withhold the sentence of death passed against the appellant. Benefit of doubt-- ----Golden rule--Obligation of the Court--Administration of criminal justice--It is the sacred obligation of the Court to uncover the truth and husk out the lies and if this process also fails then the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant as of right entitling her to clean acquittal because century old golden rules of benefit of doubt in the administration of criminal justice…
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