| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1510 2021 SLD 1510 2021 YLR 1002 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2017 and Murder Reference No. 77of 2019, heard on 20th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 20thOctober, 2020.
RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE, SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellant.Sajjad Hussain Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2017 and Murder Reference No. 77of 2019, heard on 20th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 20thOctober, 2020.
RAJA SHAHID MEHMOOD ABBASI, JUSTICE, SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, JUSTICE
Raja Ghaneem Aabir Khan for Appellant.Sajjad Hussain Bhatti, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh for the Complainant.
BILAL KHAN ALIAS MISAL KHANVSTHE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witness---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that there was a minor scuffle between deceased and accused---Prosecution case revolved around the statements of complainant and a witness---Relationship of the said witnesses with the deceased was on record---Deceased was the son of complainant and maternal cousin of witness---Said witnesses were admittedly not the residents of the place of occurrence---Complainant, during cross-examination, stated that the place of occurrence was at a distance of about hundred meters from his house---Complainant had stated that the house of witness was situated three houses away from his house---Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses had their residences or their businesses at the place of occurrence---Alleged eye-witnesses were not mentioned in column No.4 of the inquest report as being the ones who were present at the time of preparation of the said inquest report by the Investigating Officer---Said witnesses were also not the ones who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem report---Said witnesses claimed that after the occurrence they put the then injured (deceased) in a Rickshaw and proceeded to the hospital---Clothes of both the witnesses should have been smeared with blood in circumstances, however, Investigating Officer did not take any such blood stained clothes of the witnesses in possession---Said omission struck at the roots of the case of the prosecution and laid bare the untruthful and false claim of the said witnesses to have been present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Both the said witnesses were under a duty to provide convincing explanation appealing to a prudent mind of their presence at the crime spot otherwise their testimony had to be declared questionable and unacceptable---All those omissions were conspicuous by their absence---In absence of physical proof or the reason for the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene, the same could not be…
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