| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2301 2023 SLD 2301 2023 YLR 2072 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 334 and Criminal Revision No. 78 of2010, decided on 26th January, 2022. Date of hearing: 18thJanuary, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Syed Junaid Alam for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2010). Abrar Ali Khichi, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2010). Jamal Ahmed Mufti for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2010). Jamal Ahme
Criminal Appeal No. 334 and Criminal Revision No. 78 of2010, decided on 26th January, 2022. Date of hearing: 18thJanuary, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Syed Junaid Alam for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2010). Abrar Ali Khichi, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2010). Jamal Ahmed Mufti for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 334 of 2010). Jamal Ahme
UMAIR ASHRAF---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302,380
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 380---Qatl-i-amd, theft in dwelling house--- Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one day in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also steeling his car and other precious articles from his flat---Although the FIR was lodged a day after the incident, however, said delay was not found to be fatal to the prosecution case as the delay had been explained by the complainant having travel from "P" to "K"---Complainant had not tried to falsely implicate the accused in the case as the FIR was lodged against unknown persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 380--- Qatl-i-amd, theft in dwelling house--- Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also steeling his car and other precious articles from his flat---Watchman of the building where flat of the deceased was situated appeared as witness---Said witness did not know the accused and only got fleeting glances of him at night when it was dark and later one evening---Said witness could not see whether accused was injured, which apparently he was according to other witnesses---Witness did not give any hulia of the accused in his S.161, Cr.P.C statement---Witness was not brought before any identification parade to identify the accused and could not confidently identify him in court---Witness, in his evidence, could not even say whether the accused who was present during the recording of his S. 164, Cr.P.C statement before the Magistrate was the same person whom saw with the deceased and as such could not safely rely on his evidence that the accused was the boy who was last seen with the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting…
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