Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3268 2022 SLD 3268 2022 PCRLJ 1753
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 642 and Criminal Revision No. 380 of2017, heard on 16th November, 2021.
MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J
Shahid Azeem and Mudassar Naveed Chatha for Appellants. Rai Asif Mehmood, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Rai Munir Zafar Sangra for the Complainant.

MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD and anothers

VS

The STATE and others

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,34,148,149

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34, 148 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Injured witness---Scope---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person of the complainant party was hit and died, whereas the other become injured---Prosecution for ocular account had put injured and took help from previous statement of complainant recorded in an earlier case for corroboration, yet it was lurking on legal premises with respect to its method of tendering into evidence---Before embarking upon testimony of injured, role of accused with respect to injury on the head of deceased was examined in the light of medical evidence and position of parties at the crime scene---Entry wound on left pinna of ear was notpossible from point of presence of accused and the deceased with stated positions who were facing each other, when the witness deposed that they alighted from their bikes---Other stance of turning back the bikes though was not proved, yet for the sake of argument, if it was considered that seeing the assailant, deceased tried to turn back and in that position received the fire, then deceased must have fallen from the motor bike and corresponding injuries due to fall should have been on his person which were missing in the post mortem report and deposition of doctor---Injured was also sitting at rear seat but did not have such injuries on his person---Injured admitted that both the parties related inter se and developed enmity was also evident---Injured witness faced certain confrontation during his deposition before the court which he could not justifiably accounted for---Said witness admitted that near the place of occurrence, number of people resided but none of them came forward to support the prosecution version---Accused also claimed his marriage with sister of that witness who was later divorced yet that fact was denied by said witness---Similarly, said witness denied the suggestion that he in fact committed the murder of deceased, which was the first version of accused…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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