| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 6461 2011 SLD 6461 2011 PCRLJ 552 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 296-J and Murder Reference No. 429 of 2005, heard on 30th September, 2010.Date of hearing: 30th September, 2010.
Before Sh. Najam-ul-Hasan and Muhammad Anwaarul Haq, JJ
Maqbool Aimad Qureshi, (Defence Counsel at State expense) for the Appellant. Qazi Zafar Iqbal, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 296-J and Murder Reference No. 429 of 2005, heard on 30th September, 2010.Date of hearing: 30th September, 2010.
Before Sh. Najam-ul-Hasan and Muhammad Anwaarul Haq, JJ
Maqbool Aimad Qureshi, (Defence Counsel at State expense) for the Appellant. Qazi Zafar Iqbal, Additional Prosecutor-General for the State.
MUHAMMAD IDREES---Appellant
VS
THE STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Case of prosecution rested upon evidence of extra judicial confession, exculpatory statement of co-accused, recovery of a Danda at the instance of accused and medical evidence---Extra judicial confession of accused was of best importance when both the witnesses of extra judicial confession had stated that Police did not record their statements during the investigation under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Evidence of a witness whose statement had not been recorded during the investigation, was not worth reliance---Even otherwise, extra judicial confession was a weak type of evidence and it must receive strong corroboration from other reliable evidence---Statement of co-accused was just an exculpatory statement and could not be made basis for the conviction of accused; and even was of little value against its maker---Not permissible under the law to treat the statement of co-accused as evidence against other accused---Medical evidence by itself was not an evidence to reflect as to who was responsible for causing injuries to the deceased; and it could not be used to the extent of corroboration of ocular account, if any, or to corroborate any other strong circumstance---Evidence of complainant was just based upon suspicion and suspicion however strong, could not take place of an evidence to be used for the conviction of accused--Recovery of Danda at the instance of accused was not blood stained and it was never sent to the Chemical Examiner for tracing of any blood stains on the same---Prosecution had failed to prove the case against accused and no legal, convincing or trustworthy evidence was available connecting accused with the crime alleged against him---Conviction and sentence of accused, were set aside, accused was acquitted of the charge and was set at liberty, in circumstances. 1996 MLD 1311; 1995 PCr.LJ 248; Tahir Javed v. The State 2009 SCMR 166; Zafar Iqbal and others v. The State 2006 SCMR 463 and State v. Asfandyar Wali and 2 others 1982 SCMR 321 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 161---Examination of witnesses by police---Evidence of a witness whose statement…
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