| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2855 2021 SLD 2855 2021 PLJ 299 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 506-J of 2018 & M.R. No. 70 of 2017, heard on 11.11.2020.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
Mr. Amin Ashraf Khan and Ms. Nighat Saeed Mughal, Advocates for Appellants. Mr. Tariq Javed, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Ch. Hashim Hayat, Advocate for Complainant.
Crl. A. No. 506-J of 2018 & M.R. No. 70 of 2017, heard on 11.11.2020.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
Mr. Amin Ashraf Khan and Ms. Nighat Saeed Mughal, Advocates for Appellants. Mr. Tariq Javed, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Ch. Hashim Hayat, Advocate for Complainant.
KASHIF
VS
STATE
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--Qatl-e-amd--Dishonest improvements--Extra-judicial confession--There is absolutely no plausible or convincing reason for aforesaid delay in reporting matter to police which casts serious doubt about veracity of prosecution story--Prosecution case made dishonest improvements, he was confronted with his previous statement and improvements were brought on record--Even otherwise last seen evidence is a weakest type of evidence unless corroborated with some other piece of evidence which is conspicuously missing in this case--No evidence qua abduction of deceased by appellant was produced by prosecution during trial and even appellant was not convicted in said charge meaning thereby story narrated by complainant qua abduction of deceased at hands of appellant has been disbelieved by trial Court--Most important and natural purpose of making extra-judicial confession is to seek help from third person and same is usually sought from an influential person who had some authority/power in society but in case in hand witnesses of extrajudicial confession are ordinary women rather they were close relatives of deceased--Furthermore, extrajudicial confession is always considered a weak type of evidence and it is procured at any time during investigation when there is no direct evidence available to prosecution--Moreover, legal worth of extra judicial confession too is almost equal to naught, keeping in view natural course of events, human behaviours, conduct and probabilities, in ordinary course--Extra judicial confession has never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it is strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source, therefore, in our view this piece of evidence is entirely insufficient to maintain conviction on such a charge, more so, when it is badly tainted one and appears to be job of investigating officers who normally indulge in such like police chicanery--How Chemical Examiner could give an opinion about presence of human blood on it--Moreover, alleged recovery of bicycle at instance…
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