Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 700 2018 SLD 700 2018 SCMR 772
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2017, decision & hearing Date : 07-02-2018. (Against the judgment Dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeal No. 415-J of 2013)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Aftab Ahmad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed Khan, Additional P.G. for the State.

MUHAMMAD MANSHA

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 302(c) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Dishonest improvements in statements of witnesses---Effect---Trial Court convicted the accused under Ss. 302(b) & 34, P.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life---High Court converted the conviction from Ss. 302(b) to 302(c), P.P.C. and reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years rigorous imprisonment; held, that the trial Court acquitted three co-accused persons who, according to prosecution's own case, actively participated in the occurrence---High Court also acquitted a fourth co-accused person while declaring the prosecution evidence totally doubtful on account of dishonest improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses, but on the same piece of evidence convicted the present accused---Witnesses, in the present case, had made dishonest improvement in order to bring the case in line with the medical evidence, thus, conviction of accused was not sustainable on the testimony of said witnesses without independent corroboration which was conspicuously lacking in the present case---According to the prosecution a weapon was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused---Although the report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding working condition of the weapon was available on the record but in the report it was mentioned that said weapon was recovered from the place of occurrence and as such the same was inconsequential---In the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence the conviction of the accused was not sustainable on the same set of evidence which, according to the High Court, was full of doubts due to dishonest improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses---Conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge leveled against him---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11; Sarfraz alias Sappi v. The State 2000 SCMR 1758; Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185; Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6; Muhammad Ali v. The State 2015…
🔒
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