Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2934 2021 SLD 2934 2021 PLJ 345
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 500-J of 2018 & M.R. No. 60 of 2017, heard on 3.2.2021, Date of hearing: 3.2.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE
Rai Bashir Ahmad, Nighat Saeed Mughal and Muhammad Akram Khaksaar, Advocates for Appellant. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Rai Faisal Tufail Kharal, Advocate for Complainant.

SABIR HUSSAIN

VS

STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(B)/34

Testimony of witness-- ----It is we settled by now 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. [P. 349] A 2010 SCMR 385 and 1993 SCMR 550. Testimony of witness-- ----Testimony of a witness ordinarily is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his/her presence at crime scene at relevant time--In normal course, presumption under law would operate about his/her absence from crime spot--Testimony of witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence at crime spot are put forth, when occurrence took place otherwise his testimony would fall within category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt--All these factors clearly suggest that it was an unwitnessed occurrence and alleged eye-witnesses were not present on spot. [P. 349] B Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b)/34--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Testimony of witness--Motive--A quarrel took place--Medical evidence--Motive behind occurrence as alleged in FIR was that sometime earlier to incident, a quarrel took place between partition--Deceased man forbade them, upon which appellant became enraged and due to that revenge, appellant committed murder of deceased--Motive incident took place between khichi and chadhar bradri but none of person from either bradri or people gathered at that time was associated during course of investigation--No independent witness qua motive was produced before trial Court at time of trial--Therefore, in our view, Prosecution has not been able to substantiate alleged motive behind occurrence--Medical evidence produced by prosecution was not of much avail to prosecution because murder in issue had remained un-witnessed and thus medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards appellant--So far as defence plea taken by appellant in his statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, since prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature,…
🔒
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