| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2130 2011 SLD 2130 2011 YLR 576 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 36-J of 2007, and Murder Reference No. 769 of 2005, decided on 1st December, 2010
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, JJ
M. Azfar Ali Malik and Ejaz Ahmad Bajwa for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Nemo for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 36-J of 2007, and Murder Reference No. 769 of 2005, decided on 1st December, 2010
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, JJ
M. Azfar Ali Malik and Ejaz Ahmad Bajwa for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Nemo for the Complainant
NASIR alias NASRI
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 393---Qatl-e-Amd and attempt to commit robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account--Complainant alleged that four assailants armed with firearms fired at his car front left and right side of car but according to post mortem report deceased sustained injuries on her front, back and left side of her body---Complainant himself did not receive even a scratch during occurrence---Doctor during post moment examination of deceased observed blackening of margins regarding one injury but there was no evidence to show that any fire was made from such a close range---Ocular testimony was not corroborated by medical evidence, which created doubt in prosecution story---Ocular account furnished by complainant and one prosecution witness that assailants resorted to firing front both the sides was further falsified by recovery memo of car which showed that firing was made only from the front side as all bullet marks were available on left side of front screen and not anywhere else on the car---Prosecution's case was doubtful in nature, did not inspire confidence and failed to bring home guilt of accused---Conviction and sentence of death awarded to accused by Trial Court was set aside by High Court and accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302--Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatal-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Identification parade---Non-mentioning of role---Effect---Description of assailants was not mentioned in F.I.R. and even during identification parade accused was not picked up with reference to the role allegedly played by him during occurrence and it was simply stated that witnesses had identified the accused--Evidentiary value of identification parade of accused in identification parade without attributing to his role in the crime had no evidentiary value. Mehmood Ahmed and 3 others v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon---Absence of report of…
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