| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1908 2021 SLD 1908 2021 PLJ 891 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. Nos. 222-J, 757 & M.R. No. 419 of 2017, decided on 1.3.2021, Date of hearing: 1.3.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE.
Rai Bashir Ahmad, Shamshad Ahmad Bajwa and Ms. Saiqa Javed, Advocates for Appellants. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Malik Muhammad Afzal Farooq and Kamran Bashir Mughal, Advocates for Complainant.
Crl. A. Nos. 222-J, 757 & M.R. No. 419 of 2017, decided on 1.3.2021, Date of hearing: 1.3.2021.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, JUSTICE, SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JUSTICE.
Rai Bashir Ahmad, Shamshad Ahmad Bajwa and Ms. Saiqa Javed, Advocates for Appellants. Rai Akhtar Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Malik Muhammad Afzal Farooq and Kamran Bashir Mughal, Advocates for Complainant.
MUHAMMAD FEROZ AND ANOTHER
VS
STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Delay-- ----While appearing before trial Court complainant and (PW) did not utter even a single word about delay--That/this inordinate delay in setting machinery of law in motion speaks volumes against veracity of prosecution version. Chance witnesses-- ----Scope of--Presumption--Testimony of chance witness ordinarily is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at crime scene at relevant time--In normal course, presumption under law would operate about his absence from crime spot--testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on 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 sal. Motive-- ----Words were exchanged between parties--No cogent/convincing evidence qua motive was produced by prosecution during trial--Furthermore, no independent witness qua motive was joined by police in investigation or produced by prosecution before learned trial Court during trial--Prosecution has failed tol substantiate motive against appellants. Recovery of weapon-- ----Evidentiary value--It is, by now, well established proposition of law that if crime empty is sent to FSL after arrest of accused or together with crime weapon, positive report of laboratory loses its evidentiary value. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 342--Defence plea--So far as defence pleas taken by appellants in their statements under Section 342, since prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature, therefore, there is no need to discuss same which are exculpatory in nature. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b) 34--Sentence--Challenge to--Ocular account--Benefit 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 appellants--It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance…
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