| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2932 2024 SLD 2932 2024 SCMR 929 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr. Appeal No.425 of 2019 and Cr. Petition No.632 of 2020, decided on 14th March, 2024. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 23.02.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl. Appeal No. 492 of 2011).
PRESENT: JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI AND MUSARRAT HILALI, JJ
Ansar Nawaz Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant/Petitioner (in Crl.A. No. 425 of 2019). Malik Waheed Anjum, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. A. 425 of 2019). Irfan Zia, D.P.G.,
Cr. Appeal No.425 of 2019 and Cr. Petition No.632 of 2020, decided on 14th March, 2024. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2024. (Against the judgment dated 23.02.2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Crl. Appeal No. 492 of 2011).
PRESENT: JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI AND MUSARRAT HILALI, JJ
Ansar Nawaz Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant/Petitioner (in Crl.A. No. 425 of 2019). Malik Waheed Anjum, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 2 (in Crl. A. 425 of 2019). Irfan Zia, D.P.G.,
SHAUKAT HUSSAIN---APPELLANT
VS
THE STATE THROUGH PG PUNJAB AND ANOTHER---RESPONDENTS
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Delay of about four hours in reporting the matter to the police---Consequential---There was a delay of about four hours in reporting the crime to the Police whereas Police Station was situated at a distance of about 20 kilometers from the place of occurrence---No explanation at all was furnished for causing delay in reporting the crime to the Police---Contention that approximately four hours delay in lodging the FIR is a normal thing does not appeal to the mind---Had the matter been reported within reasonable time, the police would have easily reached at the place of occurrence within about an hour---Why the matter had not been reported immediately by the eye-witnesses was a question which could not be satisfactorily explained by the witnesses during their evidence---In the circumstances, chances of deliberations and consultations before reporting the matter to the Police could not be ruled out---Appeal was allowed; the judgments passed by the Trial Court and High Court were set aside to the extent of the appellant; and he was acquitted of the charge. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Co-accused persons acquitted on the same evidence---Effect---On the same set of evidence, the co-accused persons had been acquitted of the charges, whereas the appellant (accused) had been convicted and sentenced---Benefit of the same should have also been extended to the appellant---Injured, shown as a witness in the calendar of witnesses in the charge sheet, had not been produced by the prosecution for evidence in support of its case without any cogent and plausible reason, thus the prosecution had withheld the best evidence---Case of the prosecution was on weak footings and the benefit of doubt arose in favour of the appellant (accused)---Appeal was allowed; the judgments passed by the Trial Court and High Court were set aside to the extent of the appellant; and he was acquitted of the charge. JUDGMENT SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE:---.--- Cr.A.No.425 of 2019: Through this appeal, by leave of the Court, the appellant has called in question…
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