| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1920 2022 SLD 1920 2022 PLJ 410 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Crl. A. No. 138 M.R No. 29 of 2017, heard on 14.9.2021. hearing date: 14.9.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
Mr. Bader Raza Gillani, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Ch. Muhammad Saeed Machra, Farzan Hashmat Ch. and Malik Muhammad Awais, Advocates for Complainant.
Crl. A. No. 138 M.R No. 29 of 2017, heard on 14.9.2021. hearing date: 14.9.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
Mr. Bader Raza Gillani, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Ch. Muhammad Saeed Machra, Farzan Hashmat Ch. and Malik Muhammad Awais, Advocates for Complainant.
MUHAMMAD KHALIL AHMAD
VS
STATE and another
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-i-amd--Motive--Quarrel between spouses--Alleged recovery of sota--Medical evidence--Testimony of chance witness--Ocular account--Eye-witnesses had statedly seen occurrence when they entered house of deceased and we found it to be quite strange that if appellant had to murder deceased, then he did not have to wait for arrival of said witnesses for starting infliction of injuries upon deceased--It is well settled by now that any piece of evidence which was not put to an accused while recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. cannot be used against him--Even otherwise, no independent witness qua motive was brought in witness box at time of trial--Prosecution has not been able to substantiate motive part of occurrence--As far as medical evidence is concerned, same may confirm ocular account with a regard to receipt of injury, locale of injury, kind of weapon used for causing injury, duration between injury and death but it would not tell name of assailants--Held: It is, by now well established principle of law that it is prosecution, which has to prove its case against accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from weaknesses of case of defence--Further held: It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding prosecution case, same is sufficient to benefit of doubt to accused, whereas, instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about prosecution story. [Pp. 413, 414 415] A, D, E G 2009 SCMR 230 1995 SCMR 599, 2015 SCMR 1142 and 2016 SCMR 2021 ref. 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 standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from weaknesses of case of defence.[P. 415] F Testimony of Chance Witness-- ----It is in this context that testimony of a chance witness ordinarily is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at crime scene at relevant time--In normal course, presumption…
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