| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 948 2022 SLD 948 2022 SCMR 1107 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2020, decision Dated: 14-02-2022, hearing Date : 14-02-2022 (Against the judgment Dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Cr. A. No. 356-I/2013 with M.R. No. 376/2013)
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2020, decision Dated: 14-02-2022, hearing Date : 14-02-2022 (Against the judgment Dated 20.02.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Cr. A. No. 356-I/2013 with M.R. No. 376/2013)
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for the State.
RAFAQAT ALI
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 154,161
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence--- Complainant prosecuted his case through supplementary statements, subsequently recorded on two different occasions--- Similarly, prosecution’s preference for a witness whose name did not figure in the crime report in preference to another witness, abandoned during the trial, was a circumstance that clamoured for explanation---Suppression of multiple firearm punctured wounds endured by a co-accused, examined on the day of occurrence, under a police docket, was another aspect, requiring explanation---Acquittal of identically placed co-accused without challenge was another predicament confronting the prosecution in addition to massive improvements in the statement of the complainant, duly confronted in the witness-box---Argument that occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged in the crime report could not be dismissed, in circumstances---Prosecution’s case contained several doubts, each deducible from prosecution’s own evidence, benefit whereof, could not be withheld from the accused---Appeal was allowed, and the accused was acquitted from the charge. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---Ss. 154 , 161---Accused not named in the FIR, implicated through supplementary statement of witness---Prosecution, duty of---Though the First Information Report (FIR) is not to be taken as prosecution’s last word, nonetheless, a supplementary statement, essentially being a statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. cannot be read in continuation thereof and, thus, a heavy responsibility is cast upon the prosecution to satisfactorily explain its initial failure to nominate an accused in the crime report and the circumstances improving upon its knowledge so as to justify inclusion of the accused. ORDER: QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE:---.--- Mirza Mubashar Baig, 23, was assaulted at 12:00 hours on 17.11.2006 within the remit of Police Station Islam Pura Lahore; rushed to the hospital in injured condition, despite multiple attempts by the Investigating Officer, he was opined as incapable to make a statement and finally succumbed to the injuries on 23.11.2006. Initial medical…
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