Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2555 2024 SLD 2555 2024 YLR 397
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Criminal Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, heard on 7th February, 2022.Date of hearing: 7th February, 2022.
Before Sohail Nasir, J
Prince Rehan Iftikhar Sheikh for Petitioner. Muhammad Laeeq ur Rehman, Assistant District Public Prosecutor for the State.

ABDUL JABBAR---Petitioner

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses--- Non-availability of the justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Accused was charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant and her daughter by firing---Record showed that the brother and son of the deceased being eye-witnesses furnished ocular account of the incident---Complainant was the real brother of deceased but he was not the resident of the house or locality where deceased was residing---Complainant in cross-examination, admitted that his house was at a distance of about 4/5 kilometers from crime scene and that he was a laborer---Similarly other eye-witness although was the real son of deceased but he too was not residing in the house with her mother---Said witness was residing and running his shop which was at a distance of one kilometer from crime venue---Both the said witnesses in view of said circumstances were chance witnesses---Chance witness was a person who under ordinary circumstances was not supposed to be present at a place where he claimed but he had to be at his ordinary place of residence or work---Thus, when a chance witness claimed his presence at a particular site he was always under heavy obligation to show any specific reason to establish his availability at the stated place---In failure to offer any good reason such witness remained of no worth for prosecution---In the FIR, it was stated by complainant that eye-witness told him that few days earlier accused came to the house of deceased and forced her for Nikah and for that reason, on the day of occurrence he and eye-witness were sitting in the house of deceased---Surprisingly, those words never came out from the mouths of witnesses during their examination-in-chief---Contents of FIR were not the final words and could not substitute the evidence---Unless said contents were proved by maker while appearing in court, no value could be attached thereto---As both the eye-witnesses completely failed to disclose any reason for their presence in the house of deceased, therefore, on that score alone their credibility had lost the…
🔒
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