| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 69 2019 SLD 69 2019 PLJ 11 |
Lahore High Court
M.R. No. 37 of 2013, Crl. As. No. 253, 286 of 2013 and Crl. Rev. No. 219 of 2013, heard on 05.06.2018.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate (Rustam & Allah Ditta).
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Shahid Aleem, Addl. P.G. Syed Irfan Haider Shamsi, Advocate
M.R. No. 37 of 2013, Crl. As. No. 253, 286 of 2013 and Crl. Rev. No. 219 of 2013, heard on 05.06.2018.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate (Rustam & Allah Ditta).
Respondent(s) by: Mr. Shahid Aleem, Addl. P.G. Syed Irfan Haider Shamsi, Advocate
STATE ETC.
VS
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN, ETC.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Re-appraisal of evidence--Night time occurrence with no source of light except moon light--As per site-plan witnessed occurrence from a distance of 27 Karams--In that situation from any stretch of imagination or methodology a human being cannot identify culprits from such a distance--Particulars qua name, age and caste of PW-9 contained in MLC as well as in his statement recorded before Court are altogether different from each other--In presence of different particulars, it cannot be said with certainty that PW-9 was same person who witnessed incident--For an injured witness whose presence at occurrence is not disputed it can safely be concluded that he had witnessed incident--However, more than one circumstances creating doubt qua presence of PW-9 at spot--So far as other pieces of evidence like, blood stained Sota, Baheen, etc. those do not advance prosecution case in any manner--During investigation .30 bore Pistol (P1) was recovered from appellant but in absence of any crime empty forensic report of Ballistic Expert is of no avail to prosecution case--From overall analysis of prosecution evidence, it is abundantly clear that occurrence did not take place in manner as alleged by prosecution--On re-appraisal of evidence as discussed above, that charge against appellants in this case was not proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt--Findings of conviction recorded by trial Court are not in line with facts established on record--Criminal Appeal filed by appellants is allowed. Prosecution Evidence-- ----Reliable or trustworthy--Proposition of Law--Held: It is settled proposition of law that at first Court has to see whether prosecution evidence is reliable and sufficient to record conviction--If it is concluded that prosecution evidence is trustworthy then, version of defence, if any, is to be considered in juxta position with prosecution version to see as to which of two is correct and more reliable--If prosecution evidence itself is doubtful and unreliable, in that eventuality plea taken by accused regarding different mode of occurrence will not be of much…
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