| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2837 2021 SLD 2837 2021 PLJ 181 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 31052 & M.R No. 332 of 2017, heard on 19.11.2020.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
M/s. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Mehru Munir Bhatti and Muhammad Asif Hayat, Advocates for Appellant. M/s. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Talokar, Khawaja Umaiz and Naila Mushtaq Dhoon, Advocates for Complainant Rai Akhtar Hussain, DPG for State.
Crl. A. No. 31052 & M.R No. 332 of 2017, heard on 19.11.2020.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
M/s. Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Mehru Munir Bhatti and Muhammad Asif Hayat, Advocates for Appellant. M/s. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Talokar, Khawaja Umaiz and Naila Mushtaq Dhoon, Advocates for Complainant Rai Akhtar Hussain, DPG for State.
MUHAMMMAD HARIS KHAN
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--Qatl-e-amd--It is mentioned in FIR that deceased was taken to DHQ hospital Mianwali for treatment hut he died on reaching hospital--Whereafter his dead body was brought back to R.I1.C--Kundian for postmortem examination--Neither any doctor nor official of hospital lias been produced by prosecution that dull deceased was brought in DHQ hospital Mianwali in injured–condition, and died in hospital--Postmortem examination report shows that dead body received in dead house at 1.45 p.m. on 14.11.2014 whereas occurrence took place on 14.11.2014 at 1 1.30 a.m--Complete documents from police received at p.m--Considering this delay, consultation and deliberation in lodging of FIR cannot be ruled out--Motive of occurrence stated by complainant PW6 is a dispute of laud between appellant and deceased--Complainant’ PW6) admitted ill his cross examination that lie did not give detail or nature of land dispute--Considering this motive story is not believable--Recovery of Kalashnikov on pointing out of appellant in absence of positive report, of PFSA regarding matching of crime empties with weapon offence is inconsequential in present case--In view of above discussion, Court entertain serious doubt in out minds regarding participation of appellant in present case--Held: It is settled principle of law that, for giving benefit of doubt, it isnot necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt--If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in prudent mind about guilt of accused, then lie would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right--Appeal was allowed. JUDGMENT Sadaqat Ali Khan, J. Muhammad Haris Khan has been tried by learned trial Court in case FIR No. 354 dated 14.11.2014 under Section 302, PPC P.S Kundian and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 29.04.2017 as under: (1)Muhammad Haris Khan appellant u/S. (302(b), PPCHe was sentenced to DEATH as Tazir along with compensation Rs. 3,00,000/- payable to legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C., and in default thereof to…
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