| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1483 2019 SLD 1483 2019 SCMR 1068 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 03-04-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Lahore High court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1597 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 289 of 2017)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Nazir Ahmed Kamboh, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (Absent)
Respondent(s) by: Ch. M. Sarwar Sidhu, Additional P.G. Punjab Mian Muhammad Ismail Thaheem, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hus
Criminal Appeal No. 582 of 2018, decision & hearing Dated: 03-04-2019. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Lahore High court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 1597 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 289 of 2017)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Ch. Nazir Ahmed Kamboh, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate-on-Record (Absent)
Respondent(s) by: Ch. M. Sarwar Sidhu, Additional P.G. Punjab Mian Muhammad Ismail Thaheem, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hus
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE ALIAS FEEQA
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,302,302(b)
Law: Police Rules, 1934
Section: R.25.37
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 174,174(3),382B,544A
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses at scene of occurrence doubtful---Accused was alleged to have killed the deceased due to dispute over cutting of a water course---Biggest doubt in the prosecution's case was the very presence of the named eyewitnesses at the time and place of occurrence---Very reason for all the nine named persons to first gather and then to be present at the time of the occurrence at the haveli of the accused was not appealable to a prudent mind, especially when there was no evidence in support of the parties having a joint khall (water course), and the cutting of the same on the day of the occurrence was also not produced in evidence---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence--- Unexplained delay in conducting post-mortem---Post-mortem was carried out after a delay of nearly 22 hours on the next day---Such unexplained delay in the post-mortem of a deceased would surely put a prudent mind on guard to very cautiously assess and scrutinize the prosecution's evidence---In such circumstances, the most natural inference would be that the delay so caused was for preliminary investigation and prior consultation to nominate the accused and plant eyewitnesses of the crime---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge of murder. Irshad Ahmad v. The State 2011 SCMR 1190; Ulfat Husain v. The State 2018 SCMR 313; Muhammad Yaseen v. Muhammad Afzal and another 2018 SCMR 1549; Muhammad Rafique v. the State 2014 SCMR 1698; Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2012 SCMR 419 and Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. the State 2012 SCMR 327 ref. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 174---Police Rules, 1934, R. 25.37---Post-mortem examination---Procedure---Once the dead body of a person, who died in unnatural and suspicious circumstances, is taken into custody by a Police Officer, the following essential steps followed: 'firstly', there was a complete chain of police custody of the dead body, right from the moment it was taken into custody until it was…
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