| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 1107 2022 SLD 1107 2022 SCMR 1567 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 499 of 2019, decision Dated: 21-04-2022, hearing Date : 21-04-2022 (On appeal against the judgment Dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2018)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Talat Mehmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Respondent(s) by: Mirza Muhammad Usman, D.P.G. for the State.
Criminal Petition No. 499 of 2019, decision Dated: 21-04-2022, hearing Date : 21-04-2022 (On appeal against the judgment Dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2018)
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE, MUNIB AKHTAR, JUSTICE, SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Talat Mehmood Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Respondent(s) by: Mirza Muhammad Usman, D.P.G. for the State.
TAJAMAL HUSSAIN SHAH
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Medical evidence contradicting ocular account---According to two witnesses of the ocular account, the accused while armed with .30 bore pistol made a straight fire shot on deceased, which landed on his chest, due to which he fell down and ultimately succumbed to the injury---However, this stance was contradicted by the medical evidence, as according to the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased, the injury on the chest, just above the nipple of the deceased, was an exit wound and the margins of the wound were black whereas the entry wound was on the back of the deceased i.e. at thoracic spine---Blackening around the wound showed that the fire shot would have been made from a close range but according to the site plan, the accused was shown standing at a distance of 18 steps away from the deceased---Such major discrepancy raised serious doubts on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses of the ocular account---Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Plea of alibi successfully established---Accused took the stance that on the fateful day and time, he was not present at the place of occurrence and was visiting his cousin, who was posted in a a Battalion of the armed forces in a different city, and in-fact the deceased along with 25/30 persons attacked upon his house while armed with lethal weapons and beat his father---Said plea of alibi of the accused was inquired into by the Investigating Officer, who after thorough investigation found the same to be true---Investigating Officer also got a verification letter issued by the Commanding Officer of Battalion in question, which was placed on record---In support of plea of alibi, a member of the armed forced appeared as a defence witness and stated on oath that on the fateful day and time, the accused was physically present at the site of the Battalion---Prosecution had…
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