Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3252 2022 SLD 3252 2022 PCRLJ 1623
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. (T) 48 of 2021, decision Dated: 4th December, 2021.Date of hearing: 10th November, 2021.
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL AND ROZI KHAN BARRECH, JJ
Waseem Naseem for Appellant. Sudheer Ahmed, D.P.G. for the State.

SULEMAN and anothers

VS

The STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased entered into the house of his neighbour during night time upon which the mother of one of the accused threatened the deceased for dire consequences, later on occurrence took place---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses---Complainant stated in his statement before the court as well as in his report that due to non-availability of electricity, the deceased and other family members were sleeping in the courtyard of the house---Both the eye-witnesses also stated in their statements that they were sleeping in the courtyard of the house---Occurrence took place at 12 Oclock at night, and by such time, the darkness completely prevailed---Said witnesses neither in the report nor in their court statement uttered a single word about the source of light in which they identified the accused persons---Site plan was also silent about the availability of any source of light at the spot---Investigating Officer did not take any article into possession as to prove that sufficient light was present at the time and place of occurrence for the witnesses to make a positive identity of the assailant---Identification of the assailants at such darkness was impossible what to speak of identifying firing of a particular person hitting the deceased---Said sole ground was sufficient for discarding the testimony of the eye-witnesses that they were not truthful witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Gulfam and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1189 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two days in recording the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased…
🔒
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