| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 310 2018 SLD 310 2018 SCMR 506 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2015, decision & hearing Date : 9-1- 2018. (Against the judgment Dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 69-J of 2008 and Murder Reference No. 196 of 2009)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Hasnat Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Jaffar, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2015, decision & hearing Date : 9-1- 2018. (Against the judgment Dated 17.04.2013 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 69-J of 2008 and Murder Reference No. 196 of 2009)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE
Hasnat Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Jaffar, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
G. M. NIAZ
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence had taken place at a tea stall but admittedly the owner or the staff of the said tea stall had not been produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished before the Trial Court by two witnesses who were the brother and a paternal cousin of the deceased respectively---Said eye-witnesses were not only very closely related to the deceased but they were also chance witnesses who had failed to bring anything on the record establishing their claimed presence with the deceased at the relevant time---Record of the case showed that deceased was taken to the hospital in an injured condition by a police constable and not by the closely related eye-witnesses and such fact completely belied the claim of the eye-witnesses regarding their presence with the deceased at the relevant time---First Information Report in respect of the alleged occurrence had been lodged after about seven hours and forty minutes which by itself was a circumstance doubting the claimed availability of the eye-witnesses with the deceased at the time of occurrence---Post-mortem examination of the deadbody of deceased was conducted belatedly after two days of his death---Further deceased received three blunt weapon injuries which had not been explained by the eye-witnesses---Blood-stained clothes of the deceased had not been brought on the record of case---High Court had categorically found that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been proved by it---Alleged recovery of a firearm from the accused's custody during the investigation was legally inconsequential because no crime-empty had been secured from the place of occurrence so as to connect the recovered weapon with the alleged murder---No blood-stained earth had been secured from the tea stall whereat the occurrence had statedly taken place--- Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence of the accused were set aside in circumstances and he was acquitted of the charge of murder by extending the benefit of doubt to…
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