Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 278 2023 SLD 278 2023 YLR 24
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 208, Criminal Revision No. 388 and P.S.L.A. No. 101 of 2017, heard on 23rd November, 2021.
MUHAMMAD TARIQ NADEEM, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SAIF ULLAH and another

VS

The STATE and others

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,109,34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 109, 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt--- Chance witnesses--- Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive was that the deceased and nephew of the complainant were receiving threatening calls from two mobile phones--- Statements of eye-witnesses were recorded after one month of the occurrence---Prosecution had failed to explain the delay of one month in recording the statements of said eye-witnesses---Manifested from prosecution evidence that eye-witnesses were real brothers and brother of father-in-law of deceased, respectively---Question arose that when their close relative was murdered why they came back to their homes, soon after the occurrence and not approaching the police and why remained silent for one month---Held, that the eye-witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence and complainant had introduced them subsequently as eye-witnesses---Eye-witnesses could not justify the reason given by them for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Said witnesses were chance witnesses and as such their evidence was not free from doubt---Witnesses of ocular account were not witnesses of inquest report and post-mortem report of the deceased---If they were present at the time and place of occurrence, they must have been the witnesses of inquest report and post-mortem report---Similarly, said witnesses should have escorted the dead body to the hospital being the close relatives and their names should have been mentioned in the post mortem report in the column of identification of the dead body---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Kashif Ali v. The Judge Anti-Terrorism, Court II, Lahore and others PLD 2016 SC 951; Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6; Mst. Sughra Begum and another v. Qaiser Pervez and others 2015 SCMR 1142; Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others 2017 SCMR 142; Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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