Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 2274 2023 SLD 2274 2023 YLR 1865
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 56573, Criminal Revision No. 56778 andMurder Reference No. 203 of 2019, heard on 28th March,2022.Date of hearing: 28th March, 2022.
Before Sardar Ahmed Naeem and Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, JJ
Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon for Appellants. Ms. Maida Sobia, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Anwar Bhaur for the Complainant.

AMAN ULLAH SHAH and another---Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,337-U,337-A(i),337-A(ii),337-F(i ),337-F(v),337-L(2),148&149

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337-U, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-L(2), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, itlaf of teeth, shajjah-i- khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, damiyah, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah, causing hurt, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the venue doubtful--- Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused assaulted the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas seven sustained injuries---Record showed that deceased after sustaining firearm injury fell down and then was lifted/shifted by the complainant and others to a rickshaw of a person who was resident of the same village but he was not interrogated during the investigation---Complainant admitted during the cross-examination that while shifting the deceased to rickshaw and hospital, his clothes got blood stains but neither his blood stained clothes were produced nor were they taken into possession by the Investigating Officer---Witnesses were at variance regarding salient features of the case---Complainant stated that only 5/6 fires were made by the accused party, whereas a witness deposed that the accused fired about hundred shots---Complainant went on to state that at the time of occurrence, he along with the deceased and other was standing in front of the shop but no specific point was suggested by the scaled site plan---Statement of draftsman revealed that the place of occurrence was surrounded by a Chowk, however, he was unable to specify the direction of the arrival of the accused and from where they left the crime scene---Said witness admitted that had the said injured witnesses told him, he could have shown the same in his site plan and whatever the witnesses told him, he incorporated those facts without addition or omission in his notes recorded on the scaled site plan, but said fact was not confirmed by injured witness who had shown his ignorance about arrival of Draftsman at the place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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