Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 980 2011 SLD 980 2011 YLR 921
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 282 Criminal Revision No. 269 and Murder Reference No. 527 of 2005, heard on 26-05-2010.
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, JUSTICE
Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi and Haji Muhammad Tariq Aziz Khokhar for Appellants. Miah Bashir Ahmad Bhatti, D.P.G. Badar Raza Gilani for the Complainant.

RIFAT HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)/34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)/34---Qatl-e-amd--- Appre ciation of evidence---Unexplained delay of about four hours in lodging the F.I.R. and of twenty two hours in conducting the post-mortem examination of the deceased, had suggested the case having been registered after consultation and deliberation, due to the prosecution not being" certain about the real culprits of the occurrence---Motive for the incident was not proved---Complainant had changed his whole version given in the F.I.R., while deposing in the Court---Other eye-witness had also improved his statement at the trial---Eye-witnesses had not explained their presence at the scene of occurrence and thus could not be believed---Natural and independent witness available with the deceased at the time of occurrence, had been given up by the prosecution, as having been won-over by the accused and the presumption was that he was not ready to support the false prosecution version---No crime empty had been recovered from the spot on the first day of occurrence and one crime empty subsequently secured sent with the gun recovered from the possession of accused to Forensic Science Laboratory, had made its positive report doubtful and of no consequence---Occurrence was unseen and the accused had been implicated after-wards on the basis of suspicion---Accused were acquitted in circumstances. 2002 YLR 497 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.161---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)/34---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence--- Supplementary statement---Value---Supplementary statement made by complainant before Investigating Officer regarding the same occurrence is neither admissible in evidence, nor the same can be equated with the F.I.R. or read as its part. 2002 YLR 497 ref. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Riffat Hussain and Ijaz Hussain, appellants were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal in case F.I.R. No. 274 of 2003 dated 29-10-2003 registered under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. at Police Station Kacha Khoh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 19-4-2005 convicted Riffat Hussain, appellant under…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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