| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 2243 2020 SLD 2243 2020 PLJ 953 |
Quetta High Court
Crl. Rev. No. 70 of 2019, decision Dated: 18.06.2019, hearing Date : 17.06.2019
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JUSTICE
Mr. Jameel Shah, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Abdul Kareem Malghani, State Counsel for State.
Crl. Rev. No. 70 of 2019, decision Dated: 18.06.2019, hearing Date : 17.06.2019
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JUSTICE
Mr. Jameel Shah, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. Abdul Kareem Malghani, State Counsel for State.
ABDUL WALI AND 2 OTHERS
VS
STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,392
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 392/34--Conviction & sentence--Challenge to--Delay in FIR--Contradictory statement of complainant--Jurisdiction--Non-availability of evidence--Identification without specific role--Benefit of doubt--FIR was lodged after delay of twenty four hours, despite fact that distance of police station was about 13 to 14 kilometers from place of occurrence--No plausible reason has been assigned by complainant, which shows that no sincere effort was made by complainant's side to report matter to police with due promptitude, as such there is every possibility that intervening period was consumed in concocting a story, which is giving rise to many doubts regarding correctness of story narrated in crime report--Statement of complainant is also contradictory from FIR--Since in FIR distance of place of occurrence from police station has been mentioned 13/14 kilometers, while complainant during cross examination stated that place of occurrence is situated 24 kilometer away from police station--Even otherwise complainant in his examination-in-chief also make improvement that one of accused told his accomplice to fire upon them, while in Fard-e-Bayan he did not mention same--Such improvements on part of complainant created doubt in prosecution story--Complainant did not know name of convict/ appellant then question arises how he came to know about name of convict/appellant and who told him name of convict/appellant--It means later on after deliberation and consultation, accused has been implicated by complainant--If version of complainant that distance of place of occurrence is 24 kilometer from police station, then police has no jurisdiction because police has jurisdiction within 15 kilometer around police station, and beyond 15 kilometer police has no jurisdiction to arrest any person and FIR should have been lodged in levies than-- Recovery of bike has been made on pointation of convict/appellant from his house, but no private person has been associated during recovery process, and prosecution has failed to produce any documentary or ocular evidence to prove nexus of appellant with house in question, wherefrom recovery of bike…
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