Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b),302(6)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2),342,544A

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Case rested only on circumstantial evidence---Guide lines. The State v. Manzoor Ahmad PLD 1966 SC 664; Asadullah and another v. State and another 1999 SCMR 1034; Ch. Barkat Ali v. Major Karam Elahi Zia and another 1992 SCMR 1047; Sarfraz Khan v. the State 1996 SCMR 188 and Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another 2008 SCMR 1103 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Case rested wholly on circumstantial evidence---Complainant, father of the missing child, had only expressed a suspicion in the F.I.R. against the accused and his two acquitted co-accused---Statements of the prosecution witnesses who had seen the child in the company of the accused were recorded by the police after fifteen days of the occurrence---Had the witnesses of last seen evidence passed on this important and material information to the complainant, he must have rushed to the police station with them, but he did not do so, which had adversely reflected on their credibility---Complainant and the said two witnesses had failed to plausibly explain the inordinate delay of 15 days in reporting the matter to the police---No convincing evidence was available on record to show that the bones discovered in the case were of the missing child of the complainant, as no Export in this respect had been produced by the prosecution---Even in the medical report nothing was stated regarding the age of the bones---Case appeared to have been registered after the discovery of same bones, wherefater some evidence had been created which could not be relied upon, which even otherwise was only supportive in nature---Recovery of last worn clothes of the missing child could not connect the accused with the crime, because F.I.R. had no mention of any clothes---Pointing out of the place from where the deceased was allegedly thrown into the canal by the accused and his two acquitted co-accused had no value, because it was not the case of prosecution that any body had seen the accused while throwing the dead body of the child into the canal---Witnesses of extra…

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