| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1194 2022 SLD 1194 2022 SCMR 1515 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 403 of 2018, decision dated: 6th June, 2022. (On appeal against the judgment dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 280-J of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 423 of 2005)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, MUNIB AKHTAR AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional P.G. for the State.
Jail Petition No. 403 of 2018, decision dated: 6th June, 2022. (On appeal against the judgment dated 24.06.2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 280-J of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 423 of 2005)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, MUNIB AKHTAR AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional P.G. for the State.
KASHIF ALI alias KALU
VS
The STATE and another
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 46
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Complainant was neither an eye-witness nor a resident of the place of occurrence---As per the prosecution story, the complainant on receiving a call that a dacoity had been committed at his mother-in-law’s house reached at the place of occurrence, however, he did not disclose the name of the person from whom he had received a call---First Information Report (FIR) was registered with an inordinate delay of about 18 hours for which no plausible explanation had been given, which made the whole prosecution story doubtful especially when initially brother of the accused was nominated in the FIR but subsequently the present accused was substituted as an accused---In the statement of the complainant which was exhibited in evidence, he stated that the deceased was discharged from hospital and thereafter she was being treated privately in her house and succumbed to the injuries at home but he did not mention the date on which she succumbed to the injuries---Record was also silent as to how and by whom she was being treated privately in her residence---Weapon of offence i.e. churri was not sent to the office of Chemical Examiner, therefore, the recovery was inconsequential and the same could not be used against the accused---As far as the alleged recovery of gold ornaments on the pointation of the accused was concerned, the same were taken into possession by two police officials, however, the statement of one of the officials could not be recorded as he was given up by the prosecution at the time of trial---Besides, no independent witness of the locality was associated in the said process---In these circumstances, it would not be safe to rely upon the recovery of golden ornaments to sustain conviction of the accused---Doubts in the authenticity of the prosecution case were grave, which could not be ignored---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 46---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Dying declaration, reliance upon---Scope---In the present case, the…
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