Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1946 2022 SLD 1946 2022 PLJ 565
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 1123-J Crl. Rev. No. 956 2015, heard on 10.11.2021. hearing date: 10.11.2021.
SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., J.
Mr. Kashif Saeed Bhatti, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Ali Hassan, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Mr. Muhammad Shakeel, Advocate for Complainant

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

VS

STATE, etc.

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Medical evidence--Qatl-e-amd--Presence of both PWs on spot at relevant time is doubtful in nature because they did not receive even a scratch during incident despite fact that many fire-shots were made on spot at time of incident as alleged by them--Moreover, it was case of said PWs that they allegedly saw incident from a close distance but failed to understand that in presence of PWs, who were real sons of deceased, how such tragedy with the, deceased could happen without any intervention on their part to rescue deceased--No credible or convincing reason was assigned by them for their presence at place of occurrence--The prosecution story as narrated in FIR was that appellant along with his co-accused armed with rifle 44 bore and rifle 222 bore came at spot and started indiscriminate) firing with their respective weapons; at some distance complainant (PW.8) and (PW.9) were irrigating their lands and when they reached at spot, accused persons decamped from place of occurrence, meaning thereby that they did not witness occurrence as they reached at place of occurrence after incident--Medical evidence produced by prosecution was not of much avail to prosecution because murder in issue had remained unwitnessed and, thus, medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards any of culprits implicated in this case--As far as defence plea taken by appellant in his statement u/S. 342, Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, since prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature, therefore, there is no need to discuss same which is exculpatory in nature--Held: It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding prosecution case, same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to accused, whereas, instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about prosecution story--Appeal was allowed.[Pp. 568, 569 570] A, B, C, D F 2016 SCMR 1605 Benefit of doubt-- ----It is, by now well established principle of law that it is prosecution, which has to prove its case against accused by…
🔒
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