| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 364 2022 SLD 364 2022 PCRLJ 126 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2010, heard on 27-05-2021.hearing date: 27-05-2021.
SOHAIL NASIR, JUSTICE
Malik Jahanzaib for Appellant.Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.Nemo for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 1717 of 2010, heard on 27-05-2021.hearing date: 27-05-2021.
SOHAIL NASIR, JUSTICE
Malik Jahanzaib for Appellant.Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.Nemo for the Complainant.
TAJ MUHAMMADVSTHE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Improvements made by witness---Scope---No reliance could be made on the testimony of a witness who intentionally introduced improvements in his statement so as to cover the lacunas or to bring his testimony in line with other pieces of evidence. Sardar Bibi and another v. Munir Ahmad and others 2017 SCMR 344; Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State 1993 SCMR 550 and Muhammad Arif v. The State 2019 SCMR 631 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Site plan---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive alleged was that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from complainant and on demand for its return, accused was insulted by deceased---Prosecution’s case was that deceased was present at crime scene on his rickshaw---Said rickshaw was not produced by the complainant during investigation---Even its documents were not placed for consideration before the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer in cross-examination specifically replied that he had not shown any rickshaw in rough site plan---Same position was there in the scaled site plan---Circumstances always played an important role in corroboration to the ocular account, however, it was not the case of prosecution that someone had taken the rickshaw from there, so the question was unanswered that where that rickshaw was---Said fact had also created serious dents in prosecution’s story---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. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---First Information Report was lodged with promptitude---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Although it was claimed that FIR was recorded promptly, but it was not found so---Occurrence took place at 12:30 noon---Police Station was at a distance of one kilometre from crime scene that was in the city…
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