| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2796 2024 SLD 2796 2024 PCRLJ 306 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 132397, 135890 and Murder ReferenceNo. 9 of 2018, heard on 7th March, 2023.Date of hearing: 7thMarch, 2023.
Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Waheed Khan, JJ
Malik Asif Ahmad Nissoana and Muhammad Bilal Ijaz for Appellant (Defence counsel). Muhammad Waqas Kahoot for the Complainant (also in Criminal Apppeal No. 135890 of 2018). Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 132397, 135890 and Murder ReferenceNo. 9 of 2018, heard on 7th March, 2023.Date of hearing: 7thMarch, 2023.
Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Waheed Khan, JJ
Malik Asif Ahmad Nissoana and Muhammad Bilal Ijaz for Appellant (Defence counsel). Muhammad Waqas Kahoot for the Complainant (also in Criminal Apppeal No. 135890 of 2018). Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
MUHAMMAD AZAM and another---Appellants
VS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),109,148,149
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Site plan contradicting prosecution version---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Complainant claimed that he was cutting the fodder from his land when the assailants attacked upon his brother---Scaled and un-scaled site plan showed that dead body of the deceased was lying in field, which was shown under cultivation of the deceased as tenant and the said land was shown to be owned by one Mr. "N"---Claim of the eye-witnesses was that they were ploughing field but the name of the complainant was neither mentioned as a tenant nor as an owner because one Mr. "I" was shown as owner of the said land---Although complainant had alleged that the said land was under the possession of the complainant as he had got the same on lease but no such fact was mentioned on both the site plans---According to the prosecution version, the complainant along with other witness was ploughing the said field but as per site plan, the Investigating Officer and Draftsman observed and noted a crop in that field and they neither observed any sign of ploughing nor mentioned availability of any tractor in the site plan---Similarly, according to the record and version of witnesses, there was a different crop in the field, where deceased was done to death---Distance between point where the dead body was found and point where the witnesses were available was shown as 88 feet, so, it was impossible for witnesses to see the incident, which according to the prosecution took place in the field having 5/6 feet high crop---Complainant had admitted that no sickle of the deceased or cutting fodder was shown available at the crime scene---Circumstances established that the prosecution remained unable to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Site plan---Scope---Although, site plan can never be considered as substantive piece of evidence but its importance cannot be denied…
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