Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2),342,382B

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account, which was neither straightfor-ward, nor confidence-inspiring, remained uncorroborated---All the alleged eye-witnesses were closely related to each other and were inimical to the accused---In order to maintain a conviction on capital charge, evidence must come from independent and unimpeachable source rather than tainted and inimical witnesses without any independent corroboration---Conviction awarded to accused could hardly be sustained in law as alleged eye-witnesses had failed to inspire confidence---Mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased, though was not sufficient to brush aside their evidence, but as a precaution, the court had to seek independent corroboration---Matrimonial dispute regarding marriage of divorced wife of absconding accused with the deceased, existed between the parties, possibility of false implication thus could not be ruled out---No weapon of offence was recovered from possession of accused to corroborate the ocular account---Participation of accused in the crime was highly doubtful, in circumstances---Set of injuries mentioned in Medico-legal Certificate, would show and suggest that offence had not been committed in the mode and manner as prescribed by the prosecution witnesses---Co-accused was arrested from the venue of crime, immediately, after the occurrence and a .30 bore pistol was recovered from his possession---Three empties collected from the place of occurrence were fired from one and the same weapon which was recovered from the possession of co-accused, which was sufficient to create doubt regarding the participation of accused in the alleged offence---Sole independent witness of the occurrence had also not stated anything about the presence of any other accused, which had negated the participation of accused in the crime in question---Abscondence of accused, per se was not sufficient to prove guilt of accused as abscondence could equally be consistent with the innocence of accused---Abscondence, as a piece of conduct of accused, was to be judged in the light of other evidence on the…

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