| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 284 2018 SLD 284 2018 SCMR 344 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 88-L of 2009, decision & hearing Date : 26-12-2017. (Against the judgment Dated 13.11.2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 582 of 2005)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MANZOOR AHMED MALIK, JUSTICE
Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. M. Shafique Bhandara, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 88-L of 2009, decision & hearing Date : 26-12-2017. (Against the judgment Dated 13.11.2008 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1581 of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 582 of 2005)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, MANZOOR AHMED MALIK, JUSTICE
Shahid Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. M. Shafique Bhandara, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State.
IMTIAZ ALIAS TAJ
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Four co-accused of the accused attributed effective firing at and specific injuries to the deceased had been acquitted by the Trial Court---No independent corroboration to the ocular account furnished by two prosecution eye-witnesses was forthcoming---Place of occurrence was an open field in an uninhabited area, and according to the FIR the occurrence had taken place at about 05.30 a.m. whereas the medical evidence did not rule out the possibility that actually the occurrence had taken place around midnight---Both the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution, were not only real brothers of deceased but they were also chance witnesses who had failed to explain and establish the reason for their presence with the deceased at the time of occurrence---After sustaining firearm injuries the deceased allegedly reached the health center on his own, which was situated about 17 kilometers away from the scene of the crime---Medico-legal Certificate did not disclose that the eye-witnesses were accompanying the deceased when he had presented himself before the concerned doctor after the occurrence---One of the firearm injuries received by the deceased was on his buttock which had also made an exit wound from the deceased's waist and with such firearm injury it was almost impossible for the deceased to walk for a distance of about 17 kilometers so as to present himself for medical examination---Furthermore according to the prosecution a firearm had been recovered from the custody of accused during the investigation but a positive report statedly received from the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of the said firearm had not been put to the accused at the time of recording of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Motive alleged by the prosecution had been discarded and disbelieved by the Trial Court and the High Court had failed to record any reason for observing that the motive asserted by the prosecution had been established by it---Cases which, according to the prosecution, were being pursued by the deceased against the accused party…
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