| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 56 2021 SLD 56 2021 SCMR 16 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 7-L of 2020 and Criminal Petition No. 92-L of 2014, decision Dated: 24-11-2020, hearing Date : 24-11-2020. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 16.12.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1220 and M.R. No. 2
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Mudassir Naveed Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Malik Mateeullah, Advocate Supreme Court
Criminal Appeal No. 7-L of 2020 and Criminal Petition No. 92-L of 2014, decision Dated: 24-11-2020, hearing Date : 24-11-2020. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore Dated 16.12.2013 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1220 and M.R. No. 2
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Mudassir Naveed Chattha, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Malik Mateeullah, Advocate Supreme Court
MUHAMMAD ADNAN AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted with a delay of more than nine hours, for which there was no explanation on record---Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that the deceased and accused were fast friends and visited each others houses, and that on the day of the incident accused had been helping deceased in his official duties---If such claim of complainant regarding friendship of deceased and appellant was correct, it was not understandable why the accused after some time went out of his house to search the deceased on the pretext of returning a loan which he had taken from the deceased---Another eye-witness of the case claimed to be standing in a market (bazaar) when the accused and deceased allegedly passed by him---Said witness did not give any reason for being in the market---Another prosecution witness who claimed to have heard the accused and co-accused planning the murder of deceased, did not inform the complainant immediately, and instead went away to another city on a business trip---Such conduct of the witness did not appeal to common sense----Recovery of pistol and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory was of no legal consequence because the police constable who transmitted the empty allegedly secured from the spot was not produced by the prosecution---Motive behind the occurrence had not been believed by the High Court---Prosecution case against the accused was doubtful in nature---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted of the charge framed against him. JUDGMENT MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE:---.--- On the written application of complainant Muhammad Ahmad regarding an incident in which, according to him, the appellant killed his brother Muhammad Tayyab with a fire shot of pistol, case FIR No. 640 dated 18.09.2008 was registered at Police Station City Depalpur, District Okara, for offence under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. Thereafter, the complainant Muhammad Ahmad instituted a private complaint under sections 302, 364, 201, 34, P.P.C. because he was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by police. The appellant and his…
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