Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),392,34

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 22

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 392 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Scope---Accused were charged for murdering the uncle of complainant by firing while committing robbery---Allegedly, occurrence took place at 06.15 p.m., during the month of December and darkness had already spread---Although features of the assailants had been described in the FIR but there was haunting silence with regard to the source of light---From scanning the entire evidence, it had been concluded that no source of light had been given by the prosecution in the FIR, during the course of investigation as well as in the statements of prosecution witnesses before the court---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Gulfam and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1189 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 392 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of witnesses at the spot was doubtful---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for murdering the uncle of complainant by firing while committing robbery---Eye-witnesses had not given any plausible reasoning about their availability at the shop of deceased---Similarly eye-witnesses had narrated in the cross-examination that accused persons did not search them so a question arose if the accused had come to commit dacoity why they left the eye-witnesses unsearched---Accused had nothing to prevent them from doing so, thus, the presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful and not believable---All the said facts clearly demonstrated that eye-witnesses were chance witnesses---Said witnesses were closely related to the deceased as complainant was nephew, whereas, other eye-witness was a cousin of deceased, hence, their evidence was discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal…

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