| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 2858 2019 SLD 2858 2019 MLD 1732 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-183 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 29-01-2019.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, JUSTICE IRSHAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mohammad Arif Malik
Respondent(s) by: S. Sardar Ali Shah, D.P.G.
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. D-183 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 29-01-2019.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, JUSTICE IRSHAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mohammad Arif Malik
Respondent(s) by: S. Sardar Ali Shah, D.P.G.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM
VS
MULLAN ALIAS NOORUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 147,148,149,302
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 340(2),342,417
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution case was that the accused-respondents committed murder of the brother of the complainant by strangulation---Record reflected that incident occurred during the night and identification of accused was shown on torch light, which was a weak piece of evidence and the said torch was not produced before the police---In the present case, tracker dogs were called and later on FIR was lodged, wherein the names of accused-respondents were given by the complainant---Such circumstances showed that it was unseen incident, hence, possibility of false implication of accused-respondents could not be ruled out---Investigating Officer had deposed that on 5.1.2013 the complainant came at police station and stated that his brother had been killed by respondent four others but he did not give their names, however on 8.1.2013, complainant lodged the FIR wherein he did not give the name of one respondent but disclosed the names of other three respondents---Nothing was recovered from the place of incident or from respondents during investigation---Prosecution had examined co-mashir of inspection of dead body, place of incident and arrest of accused, who did not support the prosecution case---Said witness was declared hostile, therefore, his evidence was not helpful to the prosecution---Circumstances established that impugned was based on proper appreciation of evidence which was not fanciful and complainant had failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of the evidence---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Delay of about three and half days in lodging of FIR---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after the delay of three and half days---No plausible explanation to such delay had been furnished by the complainant---Complainant tried to explain that FIR was lodged…
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