| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2435 2012 SLD 2435 2012 YLR 1753 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 413 and Murder Reference No. 194 of 2006, decided on 18th May, 2011. DATE of hearing: 18th March, 2011
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, JJ
Muhammad Inayatullah Cheema assisted by Ch. Muhammad Rafique Jathol for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Shahzad Saleem Warraich for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 413 and Murder Reference No. 194 of 2006, decided on 18th May, 2011. DATE of hearing: 18th March, 2011
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK AND MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, JJ
Muhammad Inayatullah Cheema assisted by Ch. Muhammad Rafique Jathol for Appellants. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Shahzad Saleem Warraich for the Complainant
MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 459---Qatl-e-amd and lurking house trespass---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Complainant, husband of the deceased, being a Police Constable was aware of the legal formalities and despite the occurrence having taken place in his house the matter was reported to the police after a delay of five days---Explanation furnished by the complainant for such inordinate delay in the F.I.R. that he remained busy in the treatment of his injured wife till her death, was neither plausible nor convincing---None of the eye-witnesses who were closely related to the deceased, had even cared to lodge the F.I.R.---Presence of eye-witnesses at the scene of occurrence was also belied by the fact that they had not taken the deceased in injured condition to hospital---Recovery of four crime empties from an open place accessible to public after five days of the incident, was doubtful---Crime empties were deposited in the Forensic Science Laboratory after the arrest of accused and recovery of rifle from him, therefore, the positive report of the laboratory was not helpful for the prosecution---Son of the complainant, with whom the accused had a grudge and the matter culminated in the murder of the deceased, was neither cited as a witness, nor he was examined at the trial---Adverse inference, thus, had to be drawn against the prosecution in view of Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Co-accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court and appeal against his acquittal had been dismissed by High Court---Although the deceased remained alive for five days after the incident, yet there was no report of the doctor that she was not fit for making statement---Benefit of doubt was extended to accused in circumstances and he was acquitted accordingly. Muhammad Rafique and others v. The State 2010 SCMR 385; Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 418 ref. (b) Benefit of doubt--- ----Nature, value and role of benefit of doubt in law, explained. Ayub Masih v. The State PLD 2002 SC 1048 and The State v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1973 SC 418 ref. JUDGMENT MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---This judgment shall…
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