| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 3070 2011 SLD 3070 2011 PCRLJ 357 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1972 of 2004, decided on 3rd December, 2010.Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2010.
BEFORE MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ AND MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JJ
Malik Zafar Iqbal for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 1972 of 2004, decided on 3rd December, 2010.Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2010.
BEFORE MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ AND MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JJ
Malik Zafar Iqbal for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Mustafa, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State.
MUHAMMAD MAZHAR---APPELLANT
VS
MUHAMMAD FAYYAZ AND OTHERS---RESPONDENTS
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302/148/149
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/148/149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417---Qatl-e-amd---Appeal against acquittal---Deceased received injuries at point ‘A’ shown in the site plan, whereas the complainant and two prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence, while standing at point ‘B’ at a distance of more than 770 feet and it did not sound to reason that complainant and prosecution witnesses could describe the weapons and seats of injuries---Case was that of cross firing between the complainant party and accused, wherein different weapons were freely used by the parties---Fact that a large number of empties, scattered over. a large area were collected by the Police, had indicated that occurrence did not took place as was mentioned in the F.I.R.---Complainant while lodging F.I.R., alleged that shot resulting into death of the deceased was fired by proclaimed offender---No injury on the person of the deceased was attributed to any of the twenty-eight accused persons---Subsequent improvement of the complainant through supplementary statement regarding attribution of an injury to an accused was afterthought on the face of it, as no importance was attached to a supplementary statement in preference to the F.I.R.---Eye-witness account and medical evidence, were at variance and did not coordinate with each other---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory, was not of any help to the prosecution being negative qua the accused persons---Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any infirmity, legal or factual error in the impugned judgment and also remained unable to point out any particular or specific misreading or non-reading of the evidence on the part of the Trial Court---When an accused was acquitted from a case after regular trial, he would enjoy double presumption of innocence---Trial Court had given detailed convincing and plausible reasons for acquittal of the accused persons; and same were based upon accepted principles of criminal jurisprudence---No justification in circumstances existed to summon the twenty-eight accused persons in the appeal---Appeal was dismissed. Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419;…
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