| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 3341 2019 SLD 3341 2019 PCRLJ 1545 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1617, 1830 of 2015, Criminal RevisionNo. 992 and Murder Reference No. 33 of 2016, decision &hearing Dated: 15-01-2019.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Khalid RanjhaAzam Nazeer Tarar for the Complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 1830 of 2015 and in Criminal Revision No. 992 of 2015).
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Arshad Farooqi, Deputy Prosecutor-General
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1617, 1830 of 2015, Criminal RevisionNo. 992 and Murder Reference No. 33 of 2016, decision &hearing Dated: 15-01-2019.
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Dr. Khalid RanjhaAzam Nazeer Tarar for the Complainant in Criminal Appeal No. 1830 of 2015 and in Criminal Revision No. 992 of 2015).
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Arshad Farooqi, Deputy Prosecutor-General
MUHAMMAD ASIF AND OTHERSVSTHE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 109,148,149,302,302(b)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161,173,190(2),340(2),342,374,544A
(a) Administration of justice--- ----Each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same hardly coincide with each other. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 109---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused party assaulted on complainant party, made firing, due to which, son of complainant sustained injuries and then succumbed to the injuries---Motive behind the occurrence was that earlier accused had kidnapped daughter of complainant and accused party had suspicion that the complainant party would take her back and also harm them---Ocular account consisted of three witnesses including complainant---Record showed that the complainant while making statement during the course of trial took complete somersault and narrated a different story as mentioned in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Eye-witnesses had made material improvements contrary to their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. in order to bring the case in line with the statement made by the complainant---Said aspect when taken into consideration shattered the credence and authenticity of the statements of the prosecution witnesses of ocular account---Prosecution witnesses allegedly had identified the assailants in the light of headlights of the motorcycles, which were also used as means of transportation, however, the Investigating Officer had not taken into possession the means of transportation as well as light through which the prosecution witnesses had identified the assailants to supplement prosecution version--- Post-mortem examination though was conducted at 11:30 p.m. whereas according to prosecution version the occurrence had taken place on the same day at 7:00 p.m.---Medical Officer did not give specific duration between death and post-mortem examination rather the same was mentioned as within one day---Record transpired that ten persons were arrayed as accused, however, during the course of trial, they were acquitted of the charge on the same set of evidence---If evidence of the prosecution was disbelieved against bulk…
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