Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1315 2020 SLD 1315 2020 YLR 644
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2019, decision Dated: 29th August, 2019, hearing Date : 23rd August, 2019.
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN AND ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JJ
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Appellant. Sudher Baloch, D.P.G. for the State.

NASRULLAH

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,397-H(2),34

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 22

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b), 324, 397, 337-H(2) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, rash or negligent act, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Test identification parade---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of brother of the complainant by way of firing during robbery---Admittedly, complainant was not eye-witness of the occurrence and the FIR was lodged on the night at about 9:30 p.m. against unknown accused persons---Record revealed that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant under S. 161, Cr.P.C. on the night/ accused was arrested on 11.1.2017 on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused under S. 164, Cr.P.C. in another case---Identification parade of the accused/appellant was conducted on 25.01.2017, in which the witness identified the accused/appellant---Prior to said identification parade accused/ appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for identification parade but the Judicial Magistrate due to non production of CNIC of accused refused the request of Investigating Officer---Identification parade conducted in the police lockup could not be relied upon---Prosecution also produced two other ocular witnesses, but they in their court statements did not name the accused/appellant---Since the accused was not nominated in the FIR both the ocular witnesses were also required to participate in the identification parade---Prosecution had produced two witnesses as ocular witnesses but as per other witness, he along with deceased was proceeding towards their work place meanwhile the incident occurred---Said witness neither in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., nor in his statement before court had shown the presence of the ocular witnesses at the place of occurrence---Complainant neither in his fard-e-bayan nor in his court statement narrated the presence of the ocular witnesses---One of the ocular witnesses had stated that they had brought the deceased to the hospital by motorcycle but the said…
🔒
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