| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1907 2022 SLD 1907 2022 PLJ 322 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. Nos. 104912 114725 M.R. No. 606 of 2017, heard on14.10.2021. hearing date: 14.10.2021.
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, JJ.
M/s. Shahid Shaukat, Miss Maryam, Miss Ayesha Sherazi, Miss Ambreen Sarfraz, Advocates for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 104912 of 2017)Mr. Bilal Ijaz Ch., Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 114725 of 2017).Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, DPG for State.
Crl. A. Nos. 104912 114725 M.R. No. 606 of 2017, heard on14.10.2021. hearing date: 14.10.2021.
MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, JJ.
M/s. Shahid Shaukat, Miss Maryam, Miss Ayesha Sherazi, Miss Ambreen Sarfraz, Advocates for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 104912 of 2017)Mr. Bilal Ijaz Ch., Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 114725 of 2017).Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, DPG for State.
MAZHAR and othersVSSTATE etc.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302,147,149
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302, 147 149--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Formal FIR was chalked out by PW.2 within a period of almost 07 to 09 hours--No plausible explanation for delay has been brought on record--Post-mortem examination on dead body of deceased was conducted by Doctor (PW.5) with delay of about 18 to 20 hours after alleged occurrence--Eye-witnesses, therefore, could not justify reason given by them for their presence at place of occurrence at relevant time--Conduct of above mentioned eye-witnesses is highly unnatural--The accused persons were empty handed and they were not armed with any lethal weapon like pistol or gun etc. to terrify prosecution eye-witnesses from saving their loved one (deceased) when he was allegedly attacked by accused party, then as to why eye-witnesses did not interfere to rescue deceased when they were standing near appellants at time of occurrence--(PWs) changed time of occurrence from midnight to ‘Sehri Wala’ in order to bring their evidence in line with medical evidence--Due to dishonest improvements, made in their statements of supra mentioned PWs-- Both PWs are not truthful witnesses and their evidence is not worthy of reliance--Co-accused of appellants, who was ascribed effective role in occurrence, was acquitted of charge by trial Court--There is a material contradiction between ocular and medical evidence of prosecution, making prosecution case further doubtful--Said recoveries being only corroboratory in nature cannot be considered to sustain conviction on a capital charge in absence of any other convincing evidence--Prosecution could not prove its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt--Both criminal appeals filed by appellants are accepted.[Pp. 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335 336] A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J K M/s. Shahid Shaukat, Miss Maryam, Miss Ayesha Sherazi, Miss Ambreen Sarfraz, Advocates for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 104912 of 2017) Mr. Bilal Ijaz Ch., Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No. 114725 of 2017). Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, DPG for State. Khan Rustam Khan Parhiar, Advocate for Complainant. hearing date: 14.10.2021. JUDGMENT Muhammad Tariq…
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