| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2940 2021 SLD 2940 2021 PLJ 370 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 727 of 2017, Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 30 of 2018 & M.R. No. 39 of 2017, heard on 9.11.2020, Date of hearing: 9.11.2020.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE
Syed Asim Ali Bukhari, Advocate and Khawaja Umaiz, Advocate/Defence Counsel along with Muhammad Usman alias Shani, appellant (on bail) for Appellants Rai Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Mr. Muhammad Amin Ashraf Khan and Ishfaq Ahmad
Crl. A. No. 727 of 2017, Crl. P.S.L.A. No. 30 of 2018 & M.R. No. 39 of 2017, heard on 9.11.2020, Date of hearing: 9.11.2020.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE
Syed Asim Ali Bukhari, Advocate and Khawaja Umaiz, Advocate/Defence Counsel along with Muhammad Usman alias Shani, appellant (on bail) for Appellants Rai Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Mr. Muhammad Amin Ashraf Khan and Ishfaq Ahmad
GHULAM FARID ETC.
VS
STATE ETC.
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Testimony of witness-- ----It is well settled by that when a witness improves his statement to strengthen prosecution case and moment it is concluded that improvement was made deliberately and with malafide intention testimony of such witness does not remain reliable 2010 SCMR 385 and 1993 SCMR 550. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-amd--Murder reference--Benefit of doubt--Co-accused of appellant having similar role of causing firearm injury on head of deceased as well as other co-accused of appellants have been acquitted by learned trial Court, therefore, question for determination before us, is whether evidence which has been disbelieved qua acquitted co-accused of appellants can be believed against appellants--Evidence of above all eye-witnesses is shaky in nature and cannot be relied upon for maintaining conviction/sentence of appellants--Motive behind occurrence as alleged in FIR and private complaint was tojthe effect that about 4/5 months earlier to present incident, a quarrel took place between (deceased) and (appellant), regarding which case was got registered against appellants and his co-accused--Medical evidence produced by prosecution was not of much avail to prosecution because murder in issue had remained unwitnessed and thus medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards any of culprits implicated in this case--So far as defence pleas taken by appellants in their statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, since prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature, therefore, there is no need to discuss same which are exculpatory in nature--Prosecution could not prove its case against appellants beyond any shadow of doubt--Held: It is, by now well established principle of law that it is prosecution, which has to prove its case against accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from weaknesses of case of defence--In instant case, prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility of proving case against appellants--Furhter held: It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt…
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