| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2553 2024 SLD 2553 2024 YLR 372 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 78954-J of 2019 and Criminal RevisionNo. 15587 of 2020, heard on 30th May, 2023.Date of hearing:30th May, 2023.
Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J
Ch. Imtiaz Hussain Bhatti and Syed Hassan Mehdi Rizvi (defence counsel) for Appellant. Ms. Asiya Yasin, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Rana Wazir Ali for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 78954-J of 2019 and Criminal RevisionNo. 15587 of 2020, heard on 30th May, 2023.Date of hearing:30th May, 2023.
Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J
Ch. Imtiaz Hussain Bhatti and Syed Hassan Mehdi Rizvi (defence counsel) for Appellant. Ms. Asiya Yasin, Deputy District Public Prosecutor for the State. Rana Wazir Ali for the Complainant.
LIAQAT ALI alias BAO---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),427,34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 427 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses--- Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by complainant and another eye-witness---Both the eye-witnesses were not residents of the village where the occurrence took place---Site plan showed that the occurrence took place at a road in a deserted area---On both sides of the road, there were agricultural fields and no residential house, shop, bus stop, petrol pump or any other building had been shown at the spot---Both the eye-witnesses simply stated in their statements before the police, as well as, in their statements recorded by the Trial Court that on the day of occurrence, they along with deceased were returning back from Mandi upon a motorcycle 'rikshaw' after sale purchase---Said witnesses did not state the specific reason of their visit to Mandi on the day of occurrence---Although during their cross-examination, said witnesses stated that they went to Mandi to purchase ghee, sugar and some grocery but it was noteworthy that no receipt regarding the purchase of any grocery items was produced during the investigation of the case before the Investigating Officer or during the recording of prosecution evidence by the Trial Court---Both the eye-witnesses made an excuse that in fact, items purchased by them along with 'rikshaw', driven by deceased at the time of occurrence, were burnt during the occurrence on account of firing of the accused persons but it was noteworthy that in the FIR there was no such allegation that 'rikshaw' of the complainant party caught fire at the time of occurrence---Since, both the eye- witnesses were not residents of the village where the occurrence took place rather they were residents of another Chak, therefore, they were chance witnesses and they could not prove the reason of their presence at the spot at the relevant time, therefore it was not…
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