Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 848 2018 SLD 848 2018 YLR 99
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 344 and 382 and Murder Reference No. 53 of 2013, decision & hearing Dated: 09-03-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE, RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE
Basharat Ullah Khan for Appellant. Malik Amjad Ali for the Complainant. Muhammad Usman Mirza, DPG and Qaisar Mushtaq, ADPP with Khalid S.I. for the State.

MUHAMMAD SOHAIL

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Sentence--- Principle--- Conviction involving ultimate penalty cannot be based upon a presumptive or moral satisfaction in absence of positive proof. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Solitary witness, evidence of---Scope---Solitary witness can sustain charge of capital sentence provided his testimony rings true and found synchronized with in the ambit of probability. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-Amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Identity of accused---Medical and ocular account---Deceased person had married daughter of principal accused without parental approval---First Information Report was registered against two persons after one and half years---Trial Court convicted both the accused and sentenced principal accused to death while co-accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Invitation by hostile in-laws for a visit that too at an odd hour of night in the month of February sounded preposterous---Obliging promptitude to accept such call without soliciting purpose thereof was no less mind boggling---Family could have postponed the visit to a more convenient point of time under safer environment and with appropriate precautions---Prosecution case from its inception was far from being confidence inspiring---Occurrence was a night time affair in a chilled winter night, question of identity of assailants was another dilemma confronting prosecution---Site plan showed that electric bulb was illuminated in courtyard but none was taken into custody---Draftsman admitted that he himself did not see any bulb and merely mentioned its presence in the site plan on the asking of complainant and prosecution witnesses and except the bulb there was no other source of light---Mute presence of witnesses throughout during the occurrence and alarm thereafter was inconceivable to say the least---Complaint and inquest report were drafted at the spot and in column No. 24 of the inquest report dead body was found lying with head and the same was not in consonance with the narrative furnished by investigating officer, who…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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