| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 1440 2012 SLD 1440 2012 SCMR 419 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd January, 2012 (On appeal from the judgment dated 9-5-2006 in Cr. A. No.1796 of 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY AND GULZAR AHMED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2007, decision dated: 3rd January, 2012 (On appeal from the judgment dated 9-5-2006 in Cr. A. No.1796 of 2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY AND GULZAR AHMED, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Qatl-e-amd---Delay in lodging F.I.R.---Delay in conducting post mortem---Post mortem report contradicting the ocular account---Dishonest improvements by prosecution's witnesses in their statements---Witnesses related to deceased---Motive not proved---Plea of grave and sudden provocation by accused---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether the case against accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Trial Court convicted the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, while the co-accused was acquitted---Appeal of accused was dismissed by the High Court---Contention of accused was that F.I.R. was not recorded promptly and both eye-witnesses were not present at the spot and made dishonest improvements in their statements---Validity---Incident had allegedly taken place in the evening and F.I.R. was lodged at 9 p.m. on the same day, but post-mortem was conducted on the next morning at 10 a.m., which raised the question that if F.I.R. was recorded with such promptitude, why the postmortem was conducted with such a delay---Postmortem report provided time between death and conduct of postmortem as fifteen to sixteen hours, so, F.I.R. recorded with delay could not be used against the accused as a corroborative piece of evidence---Medical evidence contradicted the ocular account that the incident was promptly reported---Prosecution had produced two witnesses, father and brother of the deceased, to prove the ocular account, but both were related with the deceased and said eye-witnesses were chance witnesses as the incident had not taken place in front of their places of residence or business---Quarrel took place at the spur of the moment and it was questionable as to how the witnesses reached the spot and saw the incident---Said witnesses claimed to have seen the incident and attributed only one injury to the accused at the back of deceased's ear, but failed to explain the two injuries caused with a blunt weapon on the forehead and left eye of…
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