Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 365-A,392

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7(C)

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 365-A 392--Anti-Terrorism Act, (XXVII of 1997), S.7(c)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--The distance between police station and place of occurrence was just half kilometer--There is absolutely no plausible or convincing reason for aforesaid inordinate delay in reporting matter to police which casts serious doubt about veracity of prosecution story--Prosecution could not prove its case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--Held: It is, by now well established principle of law that it is prosecution, which has to prove its case against accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from weaknesses of case of defence--In instant case, prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility of proving case against appellant--It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which about regarding prosecution case, same is sufficient to benefit of doubt to accused, whereas, instant case is with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about prosecution story.[Pp. 802 805] A, D E 2009 SCMR 230, 1995 SCMR 127, 1993 SCMR 585 and 2011 SCMR 563 Delay in identification parade-- ----Delay of seven v days in conducting identification parade of accused as material. The relevant part of above said at page 545 reads as under: “9. ... Identification parade was held after a delay of 7 days after arrest of accused--This delay creates a lot of doubt regarding identification parade as witnesses had various opportunities to see accused persons ...” Under above circumstances, we are of view that test identification parade conducted in this case carries no value in eye of law. [P. 803] B 2011 SCMR 537. Witness-- ----Testimony of--It is well settled by now that when a witness improves his statement to strengthen prosecution case and moment it is concluded that improvement was made deliberately and with malafide intention testimony of such witness does not remain reliable.[P. 804] C 2010 SCMR 385 and 1993 SCMR 550. JUDGMENT Shehram Sarwar Ch. J.--Muhammad Javed alias Jeda Langah (appellant) was tried by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No. II,…

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