| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2551 2024 SLD 2551 2024 YLR 509 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 991, Criminal Revision No. 949 andP.S.L.A. No. 244 of 2012, heard on 4th March, 2022.Date ofhearing: 4th March, 2022.
Before Aalia Neelum, J
Rai Bashir Ahmad and Rai Amir Rehman Kharal for Appellants. Muhammad Akhlaq, Deputy Prosecutor General and Rana Ahsan Aziz, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 991, Criminal Revision No. 949 andP.S.L.A. No. 244 of 2012, heard on 4th March, 2022.Date ofhearing: 4th March, 2022.
Before Aalia Neelum, J
Rai Bashir Ahmad and Rai Amir Rehman Kharal for Appellants. Muhammad Akhlaq, Deputy Prosecutor General and Rana Ahsan Aziz, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Naveed Ahmad Khawaja for the Complainant.
MAQSOOD AHMAD and 2 others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),148,149
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Private complaint lodged fourteen months after the occurrence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity between the parties---Incident took place on 21.05.2010 at 12:00 a.m. (night) in an area which was at a distance of 06 kilometers from the police station---First Information Report was lodged on 21.05.2010 at 01.00 a.m. (night) on the basis of fard bayan of the complainant made on 21.05.2010 at 12.30 a.m.---Complainant submitted private complaint on 04.07.2011, after fourteen (14) months of the occurrence---Complainant alleged that police got her signature on the blank paper and her statement was not read over to her; and the police in collusion with the accused persons spoiled the case of the prosecution---However, the version of the complainant came on the record after fourteen months from the date of occurrence---Said facts raised grave doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution version---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that the entire prosecution evidence was silent on the point that with whom the complainant proceeded to police station for reporting the incident, when at the road of a Chak, she met with the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer had not deposed that after recording of "Fard Biyan" of the complainant, she also accompanied him to the place of occurrence---Rather, during cross-examination, the Investigating Officer deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence at about 01:00 a.m. (night), the complainant and witnesses were present there---Deposition of complainant and eye-witness, revealed that…
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