| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1910 2021 SLD 1910 2021 PLJ 900 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 71956 & M.R. No. 495 of 2017, decided on 11.3.2021, Date of hearing 11.3.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE.
Ms. Saiqa Javed and Muhammad Akram Khaksaar, Advocates for Appellants. Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chohan and Syed Ali Abbas Kirmani, Advocates for Complainant.
Crl. A. No. 71956 & M.R. No. 495 of 2017, decided on 11.3.2021, Date of hearing 11.3.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE.
Ms. Saiqa Javed and Muhammad Akram Khaksaar, Advocates for Appellants. Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chohan and Syed Ali Abbas Kirmani, Advocates for Complainant.
HASNAIN ASGHAR
VS
STATE ETC.
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b),324,34
Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chohan and Syed Ali Abbas Kirmani, Advocates for Complainant. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 34--Sentence--Challenge to--Delay of 14 days--Inordinate delay in setting machinery of law in motion speaks volumes against veracity of prosecution version. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 34--Sentence--Challenge to--Ocular account--Dishonest improvements--Witnesses--All witnesses of ocular account while appearing before Court in order to improve prosecution case made dishonest improvements, they were confronted with their previous statements and improvements were brought on record--It is well 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 mala fide intention testimony of such witness does not remain reliable. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 34--Sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Motive--Recovery of weapon--Ocular account was direct conflicted with medical evidence--Prosecution could not prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--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--Prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility of proving case against appellant--It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding prosecution case, same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to accused, whereas, instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about prosecution story--Appeal was allowed. JUDGMENT Shehram Sarwar Ch., JUSTICE.- Muhammad Asghar (appellant) was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jhang in a private complaint under Sections 302, 324 and 34 PPC instituted by Umar Hayat, complainant (PW.4) being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police in case FIR No. 172 dated 22.06.2014, offence under Sections 302 and34, PPC registered at Police Station…
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