Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 22A,161,164,382B,544A

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 129(g)

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for committing murder of father of the complainant---Record showed that occurrence took place on 22.3.2016 at 7.30 p.m., which was reported by complainant at 8.00 p.m.---Admittedly, complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence---Report of complainant showed that it was his cousin, who on the report of fire shots, came out from the house and witnessed the culprits decamping from the spot by a motorcycle/taxi---Complainant had not mentioned that occurrence was narrated to him by his cousin---Features and descriptions of the culprits were not disclosed by complainant in his report---Driver of the taxi motorcar who dropped the deceased at the spot was important impartial witness but he had not been cited as a prosecution witness---Prosecution witness, a lady, who allegedly was residing in basement of the house of brother of deceased on rental basis was got examined under S. 164, Cr.P.C., but, later on, she abandoned her abode from the said house---Cousin of complainant, who allegedly witnessed the culprits decamping from the spot, were also abandoned by the prosecution for no good reason---Adverse inference within the meaning of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would be drawn against the prosecution that had the said witnesses been produced they would have not supported the prosecution case---Record showed that it was an unseen occurrence, as none had come forward to furnish the ocular account---Complainant in his statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. on 1.4.2016 had charged the accused persons by name for the first time, but as per arrest card of accused, he had been shown arrested on 31.3.2016, a day prior to the statement of complainant---Complainant while appearing as witness had said anything about recording of his any supplementary statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., meaning thereby that after arrest of the accused, the complainant charged him at the instance of police---Co-accused had been shown arrested on 1.4.2016, whereas, confessional…

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