Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,265-H(ii),302,337-H(ii)

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

Section: 71,117,118,119

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161,340(2),342,382B,540

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 337-H(ii), 265-H(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Supplementary statement after 12 years---Night-time occurrence---Source of light---Dishonest improvement---Scope---Prosecution case was that complainant and prosecution witnesses on the relevant night heard commotion of firearms from the house of deceased---Complainant and witnesses went towards the house where they saw four persons coming out of the house of deceased whose faces were open---Deceased, then injured, on enquiry disclosed that four unidentified persons had got him injured by making fire-shots---Complainant party after consultation with nekmards lodged FIR (first information report) against four unknown accused persons---Complainant and witnesses despite claimed identification could not name the culprits in the FIR which was recorded with due consultation---Wife of deceased, an eye-witness of the occurrence, deposed that she had identified two accused persons and knew one of them---Eye-witness had not disclosed the name of accused to the complainant or anyone else at the time of incident so that their names could be mentioned in the FIR---Eye-witness had not disclosed the source of light in which she had identified the accused persons---Disclosure of names of accused persons came on record after lapse of 12 years of the incident---Eye-witness had not implicated the accused persons in her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.; her silence and taking U-turn at the time of recording her evidence before Trial Court created doubt as well it was an improvement which was not permitted by law---Lodgment of FIR with considerable delay and consultation had further tightened the already closed door for introduction of familiar/known persons as culprits---Accused persons, after arrest, were not even subjected to identification parade---Prosecution, in circumstances, had not been able to prove its case against appellants beyond reasonable doubt as doubts had crept in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted of the charges. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art.…

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