Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1512 2020 SLD 1512 2020 SCMR 1237
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 1292-L and 1196-L of 2015, decision & hearing Date : 14-07-2020 (Against the judgment Dated 08.10.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 2-J-ATA/2013, 2127/2010 with C.S.R. No. 51-T/2010)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Naveed Ahmed, Kh., Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Cr. P. 1292-L of 2015). Khurram Khan, Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab for the State. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Nihung, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant (in Cr. P. 1196-L of 2015).

MUHAMMAD YASIN AND ANOTHER

VS

THE STATE THROUGH P.G. PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Reappraisal of evidence---Autopsy of deceased, held as late as at 9:30 a.m. the following day of occurrence, despite arrival of the injured and the dead body during the preceding night at 10:20 p.m. was quite intriguing---Further it was mind boggling that examination of the injured in the hospital and recording of complaint at the spot were steps taking place at the same time i.e. 10:20 p.m.---Such coincidence when taken in the totality of circumstances admitted a possibility that crime report was not recorded at a point of time mentioned therein---Delayed autopsy in a tertiary hospital reinforced the said hypothesis that in retrospect cast its shadow on the ostensible promptitude behind the crime report---Argument that the foundation of the case was laid after deliberations and consultations could not be dismissed out of hand---Desertion of two prosecution witnesses, statedly won over by the accused, though reflected a possible societal phenomena, nonetheless, being the best witnesses in circumstances, their absence from the scene certainly called for extra caution---Witnesses unanimously blamed an acquitted co-accused to have targeted one of the deceased---Autopsy of said deceased clearly established the injury attributed to the said acquitted co-accused---Prosecution's failure qua said acquitted co-accused before the Trial Court as well as in the High Court entailed repercussions as the set of witnesses disbelieved qua said co-accused would essentially require independent corroboration vis- -vis the accused---Witnesses disbelieved with regard to an identically placed co-accused could not join themselves to corroborate each other against the accused---Motive set up by the prosecution was non-specific and vague and there were no consequential recoveries from the accused and co-accused persons--- Acquittal of four other co-accused persons, who were assigned role of indiscriminate firing only, further dented the prosecution case---On the whole prosecution case was found fraught with doubts, thus, it would be unsafe to maintain the convictions of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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