| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2183 2011 SLD 2183 2011 YLR 803 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1585, 1408, 1218 of 2005 and M.R. No. 104 of 2006, heard on 26th November, 2010
SH. NAJAM UL HASAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Ijaz Maqbool Elahi Malik for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 2005). Nasir-ud-Din Khan Nayyar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2005). Barrister Salman Safdar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2005). Shahid Bashir Chaudh
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1585, 1408, 1218 of 2005 and M.R. No. 104 of 2006, heard on 26th November, 2010
SH. NAJAM UL HASAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Ijaz Maqbool Elahi Malik for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1585 of 2005). Nasir-ud-Din Khan Nayyar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1218 of 2005). Barrister Salman Safdar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1408 of 2005). Shahid Bashir Chaudh
NADEEM
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 394---Qatl-e-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Matter was reported to the Police after delay of 10 hours---All the four accused could not be identified as they had muffled their faces---Only evidence available with the prosecution was the extra judicial confession made by accused persons with two prosecution witnesses after 1-1/2 years of the occurrence---Matter regarding extra Judicial confession made by accused after delay of 1-1/2 years, was not natural and certain contradictions existed in the statements of said two witnesses, which had created doubt in their statements---Prosecution could not bring on record any evidence to show that the witnesses before whom accused made extra judicial confession, were previously known to the accused; or as to how they approached them; or they were enjoying good status in the area---Such joint extra judicial confession, was not sufficient for maintaining the conviction of accused persons in the charge of capital sentence---No kind of weapon was mentioned in the F.I.R.---No medico-legal report of the deceased was available to indicate as to who took him to the hospital---No crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence---Recovery of gun from one of accused persons did not provide any strength to the prosecution case in the absence of any empty---No role of firing was attributed to other three accused persons---Case was of no evidence at all and accused could not have been convicted and sentenced on the basis of such like evidence---Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused persons, they were acquitted of all the charges and were set at liberty, in circumstances. Sajid Mumtaz and others v. Basharat and others 2006 SCMR 231 ref. JUDGMENT SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN, J. ---Nadeem alias Deemu, Muhammad Usman, Gharib Alam and Imran alias Heero, appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura in case F.I.R. No.271 dated 4-9-2002 for the offences under sections 302, 394, 34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Manawala, District Sheikhupura. At conclusion of the trial, the learned trial…
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