Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 593 2013 SLD 593 2013 PLD 78
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 14-B of 2012, decided on 30th January, 2013
SHAH, JEHAN KHAN AKHUNDZADA AND ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, JJ
Pir Liaqat Ali Shah for Appellants. Ahmad Farooq Khattak, A.A.G. for the State. Quaidullah Khattak for the Complainant.

SHAKEEL NAWAZ and another

VS

THE STATE and others

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 161

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No one was charged in the F.I.R.---Involvement of accused was surfaced through tracker dogs---Person who brought the sniffer dogs to the spot, could not be found---Handler of the tracker dogs was unknown and had never been examined by the prosecution---Reliability of dogs, as tracker and detector of crime had also not been tested by local Police---Tracker dogs having allegedly been brought on the next day after spot inspection by the Investigating Officer, it would be unjust to say that the trail was not stale and contaminated with different scent and it would not be possible to hold accused guilty of offence, merely on the basis that the tracker dogs had gone to the residence/Baithak of accused---Case against accused was sought to be proved by the prosecution with the help of circumstances, but those circumstances were not established by the prosecution, and were insufficient to form a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of accused---Story of last seen was afterthought and concocted after three days of the occurrence---Such last seen evidence could not be based for conviction of accused---Recovery of blood stained weapon of offence, was of no avail to prosecution, as same was not sent to the Laboratory for analysis and expert report---DNA test, being not conducted from notified laboratory, was not admissible in the evidence, and could not be based for conviction in a case of capital punishment, especially when it had no sanctity---Prosecution case, being full of material contradictions, benefit of doubt was extended to accused---Impugned of conviction and sentence, passed against accused, by the Trial Court, was set aside, accused was acquitted from the charge and was set free, in circumstances. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Evidence of dogs tracking---Sanctity and admissibility of---Tracker dogs---Involvement of accused surfaced through tracker dogs---No doubt, in the present scientific arena, dogs were reliable and efficient scent detector and trained dogs could significantly reduce the amount of time in detecting crime,…
🔒
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