| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 4159 2024 PLJ 230 , 2024 SLD 4159 |
Appellate Jurisdiction
Crl. P.L.A. No. 80-P of 2024, decided on 29.5.2024.
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah, JJ.
Mr. Salman Mansoor, ASC for Appellants (in C.A. No. 795-L of 2012). Hafiz M. Tariq Nasim, ASC for Appellants (in C.A. No. 123-L of 2013). Mr. Muhammad Raheel, Deputy Head (HR) PPCBL for Appellants (in C.P. No. 2508-L of 2017). Mian Ahmad Mahmood, ASC for
Respondents (in C.A. No. 795-L of 2012). Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, ASC for
Respondents (in C.A. No. 123-L of 2013). Mr. Junaid Jabbar Khan, ASC for
Respondents (in C.P. No. 2508-L of 2017).
Crl. P.L.A. No. 80-P of 2024, decided on 29.5.2024.
Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Athar Minallah, JJ.
Mr. Salman Mansoor, ASC for Appellants (in C.A. No. 795-L of 2012). Hafiz M. Tariq Nasim, ASC for Appellants (in C.A. No. 123-L of 2013). Mr. Muhammad Raheel, Deputy Head (HR) PPCBL for Appellants (in C.P. No. 2508-L of 2017). Mian Ahmad Mahmood, ASC for
Respondents (in C.A. No. 795-L of 2012). Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, ASC for
Respondents (in C.A. No. 123-L of 2013). Mr. Junaid Jabbar Khan, ASC for
Respondents (in C.P. No. 2508-L of 2017).
GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB PROVINCIAL COOPERATIVE BANK, LTD., etc.--Appellants
VERSUS
GHULAM MUSTAFA and others--Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
Section: 302, 324, 427, 201 & 34
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302/324/34--Qatl-i-Amd--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (10 of 1984) Art. 121--Presence of PW’s--Name in inquest report or in post mortem report--Occular account--Medical evidence--Abscondence--Acquittal of--The petitioner inflicted churri blow which landed on lower left side of neck and another churri blow which landed on left side of forehead of deceased--The parties inter se are close relatives inasmuch as complainant is not only father of deceased but also maternal uncle of petitioner--No evidence was produced by prosecution to substantiate motive of accused to commit murder of deceased--Churri was recovered after 4 years of alleged occurrence and was not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory--Mere perusal of testimonies of both eye-witnesses make their presence at spot highly doubtful--PW who was cited to be eye-witness of case did not support prosecution case and exonerated accused from alleged commission of offence--Medical evidence was furnished by Doctor/ PW-6, who conducted autopsy and noted two injuries on body of deceased--He opined that probable time that elapsed between injury and death was 20-40 minutes and between death and post-mortem was 6 to 10 hours--Delay in sending body for post mortem is reflective of absence of witnesses at place of occurrence--They would have strived to save life of deceased and immediately shifted him to hospital--Eye-witness account relied upon by prosecution is unreliable and untrustworthy--Substantive piece of evidence in shape of ocular account is untrustworthy--No conviction can be based on abscondence alone--Serious doubts in case of prosecution have been overlooked by Courts below-- There are major contradictions in prosecution’s case--The petitioner is acquitted of charge. [Pp. 289, 290, 291, 292 & 294] A, B, C, D, E, F, I, Q, R, S 2006 SCMR 1707; 2010 SCMR 566; 2010 SCMR 566 ref. Un-Natural Conduct of PW-- ----Father and brother of deceased, here neither shifted deceased to hospital nor accompanied him when same was sent to hospital by police--This behaviour alone creates a sufficient doubt in their presence at place of occurrence. [P. 291] G 2019 SCMR 1068 ref. Presence…
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