Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1263 2021 SLD 1263 2021 MLD 987
Balochistan High Court, Sibi Bench
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. (S)185 of 2019, decided on 24th November, 2020.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE, ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JUSTICE
Rizwan Ali Soomro for Appellant.

ALLAH BAKHSH

VS

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND 2 OTHERS

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,337H(ii),147,148,149

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302, 324, 337H(ii), 147, 148 149Qatliamd, attempt to commit qatliamd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assemblyAppreciation of evidenceAppeal against acquittalBenefit of doubtContradiction between witnessesPresence at scene of occurrence doubtfulProsecution case was that the accused persons committed murder of the brothers of the complainant by firingRecord showed that the names of eyewitnesses were not mentioned in fardebayan nor the eyewitness had shown the presence of the other eyewitness at the spot at the relevant timeInference, in circumstances, could be drawn that the statement of alleged ocular account was not worthy of credenceAlleged eyewitness had not accompanied the complainant either to Levies Station or to hospitalIf the witnesses were present at the spot then the complainant should mention the names of witnesses in fardebayanCircumstances suggested that the alleged ocular witnesses were foisted in order to strengthen the prosecution caseIf the names of ocular witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR, their statements needed scrutinyRecord showed that the eyewitness had not shown the presence of accused, whereas the other eyewitness stated that the firing was made by absconding accused were present at 15/20 pace awayEven the complainant in fardebayan assigned the role of firing to absconding accused, whereas accused persons, were shown present at the spot and they were assigned the role of aerial firing by SMG and no empty shell of SMG was recovered from the place of occurrenceWitnesses had not attributed any coercive role to the accused in commission of offenceCircumstances established that the Trial Court had passed a well reasoned which warranted no interferenceAppeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Bagan Khan v. State 2012 YLR 510 rel. (b) Criminal trial Vicarious liabilityScopeMere presence of the acquittal accused with the coaccused at the place of occurrence would not be sufficient to visit the former with vicarious liability. Abdul Khaliq v. State 2006 SCMR 1886 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss.302,…
🔒
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