| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1735 2023 MLD 918 2023 SLD 1735 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-163 and Criminal Appeal No.S-165 of 2017, decided on 21st March, 2022.Date of hearing: 21st March, 2022.
Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
Omparkash H. Karmani and Imtiaz Ali Chanhio for Appellants. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-163 and Criminal Appeal No.S-165 of 2017, decided on 21st March, 2022.Date of hearing: 21st March, 2022.
Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J
Omparkash H. Karmani and Imtiaz Ali Chanhio for Appellants. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, Additional P.G. for the State.
ANWAR alias ANOO and another---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged that they with their common intention had killed the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that during investigation two accused persons were arrested, their confessional statements were recorded with delay of four days---Incident was not seen by the eye-witnesses, however, there was last seen evidence of three prosecution witnesses---Admittedly, confessional statement was retracted statement as accused at the time of trial pleaded not guilty and therefore the confessional statement against him, being a witness, could not be considered as truthful statement because a person who recorded evidence against himself appeared before the Magistrate, subsequently resiled, could not be considered as a truthful witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 and Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2018 SCMR 772 ref. Mst. Saira Bibi and others v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1363 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery of weapon of offence---Scope---Recovery of weapon only could not be considered as corroborative piece of evidence until it was supported by the positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime empties from the spot---Scope---Accused were charged that they with their common intention had killed the brother of complainant by firing---Empty shells were recovered, however, case of the prosecution was that the pistol was used in commission of the offence but such efforts with regard to get such offensive weapon examined in order to verify whether it was in running condition and also to match it with the recovered empty shells were not taken---Onus probandi was upon the prosecution to prove each aspect of…
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