| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 296 2019 SLD 296 2019 PLJ 190 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 248 of 2014, hearing Dated: 17.12.2018.
ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Ghulam Abbas Ponta, AdvocateCh. Salamat Ali, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Syed Nadeem Ahmad Rizvi, D.P.G.
Crl. A. No. 248 of 2014, hearing Dated: 17.12.2018.
ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Ghulam Abbas Ponta, AdvocateCh. Salamat Ali, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Syed Nadeem Ahmad Rizvi, D.P.G.
DUR MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERVSSTATE, ETC.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(c)
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-i-amd--Acquittal of--Prosecution completely failed to prove motive of occurrence set out in FIR--Testimonies of PWs and even their presence at place of occurrence at time of occurrence, have been completely disbelieved--Occurrence took place on spur of moment--Accused inflicted injuries to deceased under grave and sudden provocation when deceased was laying over daughter of accused--As per medical evidence produced by prosecution itself, injuries inflicted by accused to deceased was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature--Conduct of nearer and dearer of deceased i.e. PWs was not natural--Such a strange and unbelievable conduct of said eye-witness is against natural and ordinary human conduct--Presence of both acclaimed eye-witnesses at place of occurrence at relevant time, is not free from doubt--Complainant got drafted application from an advocate--FIR has been lodged while procuring legal advice, after consulting a legal brain, in manners besuiting to complainant, therefore, such FIR, which has been lodged after consultation and deliberation is always seen with suspicious eyes as its veracity is deemed to be at stake being result of consultation and deliberation--It may be called an adulterated first version of complainant about occurrence, hence cannot be relied upon for safe administration of justice--Motive had also been disbelieved by learned trial judge on a valid reason due to non-availability of evidence on record, which was set out in FIR and has been dubbed to bald assertion made by complainant's side, particularly in absence of any details regarding date, time and place of motive occurrence--Appellants are acquitted. 2008 SCMR 95, ref. Recovery-- ----Recover memos have been shown to be attested by same PWs, who were named in FIR, as eye-witnesses and whose presence at spot has been disbelieved by Court, therefore, recovery had also rendered no corroboration to prosecution case. First version-- ----During investigation above said first version of accused was found correct as said by SI/IO (PW)--This statement lends support to prove…
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