| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 977 2011 SLD 977 2011 YLR 913 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. D-104 and S-103 of 2006, decision Dated: 31-05-2010. Hearing Date : 19-05-2010.
NISAR MUHAMMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE IMAM BUX BALOCH, JUSTICE
Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro for Appellants. Naimatullah Bhurgri for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. D-104 and S-103 of 2006, decision Dated: 31-05-2010. Hearing Date : 19-05-2010.
NISAR MUHAMMAD SHEIKH, JUSTICE IMAM BUX BALOCH, JUSTICE
Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro for Appellants. Naimatullah Bhurgri for the State.
ESSO
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,302(b),324
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd--Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Old/previous enmity existed between the parties---Enmity would cut both the ways, as it could be a motive of crime; and same could also be a reason of false implication---F.I.R. revealed that deceased had died at .the spot instantaneously, but medical evidence had clearly showed that time between the injuries and death was about half an hour and not instantaneous---Complainant in his cross-examination had deposed that F.I.R. was lodged by the Police after visiting the place of vardat---F.I.R. was proved to have been lodged after due consultation and deliberation, mala fidely showing same to have been lodged very promptly, which otherwise was not believable in circumstances of the case--Incident was a dark right occurrence and complainant party could not prove that electric bulb was available at the place of incident---Contradiction existed between ocular evidence and medical evidence and all such contradictions, had created doubts in the prosecution case---Independent villagers who had allegedly attracted at the spot after hearing the cries and firing, were not examined by the prosecution to corroborate the alleged incident---On the contrary only the close relatives of the complainant were examined by the prosecution---Prosecution witnesses though were related to the complainant, but despite that their evidence was contradictory on material particulars---Ocular account furnished by the prosecution, was not confidence inspiring---No circumstantial evidence of the nature to connect accused for the alleged crime was available---No other evidence' was produced to corroborated the prosecution case as set up in the F.I.R:---.---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused could not be sustained and accused being entitled to the benefit of doubt, were acquitted of the charges and were ordered to be released. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, JUSTICE:---.--- By this common judgment, the appeal No.D-104 of 2006, filed by appellant Esso and appeal No.S-103 of 2006, filed by appellants Ashique and Sadaqat,…
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