| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 801 2020 SLD 801 2020 PCRLJ 693 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 406 and Murder Reference No. 49 of 2016,hearing Date : 15-01-2019
CH. ABDUL AZIZ, JUSTICE ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Asim Ali BukhariNemo for the Complainant.Najeeb Ullah Khan Jatoi, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 406 and Murder Reference No. 49 of 2016,hearing Date : 15-01-2019
CH. ABDUL AZIZ, JUSTICE ANWAARUL HAQ PANNUN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Syed Asim Ali BukhariNemo for the Complainant.Najeeb Ullah Khan Jatoi, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State.
ALI AHMADVSTHE STATE AND OTHERS
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---First Information Report was lodged promptly---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Alleged incident took place at about 1.30 a.m. (night) and was reported to the police at 1.30 a.m. the same night---Facts remained that the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 1/2 kilometre-Complainant had not mentioned the time of occurrence in the complaint---Police Officer had endorsed the time 1:30 a.m. (night) on receiving the complaint-Since police station statedly was not located at a far away from the place of occurrence, therefore, reaching of the police at the spot within a short period after the occurrence being possible, could not be ruled out---Even otherwise, the FIR recorded at the spot or elsewhere from the police stations was suspicious as the possibility of its having been lodged after due deliberation and preliminary inquiry could not be ruled out---Promptitude in lodging the FIR could not be readily accepted, as a complimentary factor, for believing the prosecution story contained in the FIR to be true---Promptitude in lodging the FIR did not necessarily exclude the chances of consultation and deliberations by the complainant, therefore, it could not be treated as a substantive piece containing an element of correctness about the story of the prosecution. Ata Muhammad and another v. The State 1995 SCMR 599 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---"Ocular account" and "medical evidence"---Contradiction---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Complainant was the real brother, whereas other witness was happened to be paternal cousin of the deceased---Both the witnesses were not residents of the locality, where the alleged occurrence had taken place---Said witnesses had also not given any plausible reason for their presence at the relevant time at the place of occurrence---Bald assertion of witnesses of having been invited by the groom at the function could not…
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