Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 361 2022 SLD 361 2022 PCRLJ 109
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 73258 and Murder Reference No. 489 of 2017, heard on 27-05-2021. hearing date: 27-05-2021.
SEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, JUSTICE
Munir Ahmad Bhatti, Nasir Mehboob Tiwana and Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Hargan for Appellants. Muhammad Naveed Umar Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Noor Muhammad Jaspal, Aqeel Atif Chatha and Irfan Ali for the Complainant.

NASIR ABBAS AND ANOTHERS

VS

THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,34,337-F(i),337-F(v)&440

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) 440---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about four hours in lodging FIR---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon complainant party, due to which one person died, while other received severe injuries hence the FIR---Motive behind the occurrence was that accused had a grudge against the deceased and injured person that they had arranged engagement of their brother with his sister---Record showed that the occurrence had taken place at 3:15 a.m. (night) and the matter was reported to the police on the next day at 07:15 a.m. i.e. after the delay of about four hours of the incident---Distance between police station and the place of occurrence was six kilometres---Complainant in cross-examination stated that he had been using mobile phone for the last ten years and the witnesses were also using mobile phone since then---Obviously they were travelling at night far away from their houses so there was every possibility that all the witnesses had mobile phones available with them---In that way, they could have easily made calls through their mobiles to the police at available police emergency numbers which were almost known to a person travelling---Prosecution failed to give any plausible reason for the said delay, in circumstances---Thus, the delay in setting the machinery of law into motion spoke volumes against the veracity of prosecution version---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34, 337-F(i), 337-F(v) 440---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about six…
🔒
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