Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302(b),392

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 173,340(2),342,382B,544A

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

Section: 129,129(g)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 392 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding important evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing robbery and murder of daughter of complainant---Prosecution had produced three witnesses comprising complainant/father and sisters of deceased to prove the charges against the accused persons---Evidence recorded by said three witnesses before the Trial Court showed that there was no direct evidence available with the prosecution regarding the alleged incident---Complainant was just an informer of the alleged incident whose statement set the machinery of law into motion and nothing beyond that, and the same was the position of her two daughters/ witnesses---Evidence of all the three witnesses hardly advanced any purpose for the prosecution---Complainant/father of deceased and other witnesses/sisters of the deceased had stated that they collected keys from neighbour and unlocked the house of the deceased---Said neighbour was neither associated in the investigation nor she made any statement before the Investigating Officer or before the Trial Court---Neighbour was the most important witness of the incident, at least to tell the circumstances as to who left the keys of the house with her and who visited the house of deceased prior to the alleged occurrence---Statement of said neighbour should have been recorded by the Investigating Officer---Said neighbour remained out of scene which was a serious lapse on the part of the investigating agency---Adverse inference as required under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 could fairly be drawn that had the witness been examined, her evidence would have been unfavourable to the prosecution---In cross-examination, the complainant had admitted that the house in which the occurrence took place was owned by husband of the deceased---Earlier, deceased was married with the brother of her husband but the husband of deceased was never associated in the investigation---Scaled site plan, did not mention names of accused persons---Circumstances established that…

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