Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 4239 2024 PLJ 173 , 2024 SLD 4239
Appellate Jurisdiction
C.A. No. 795-L of 2012, C.A. No. 123-L of 2013 & C.P. No. 2508-L of 2017, decided on 15.4.2024.
Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Mrs. Ayesha A. Malik and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ.
Mr. Muhammad Nazir Jawwad, ASC for Petitioners (in CP No. 993 of 2014). Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC for Petitioners (in CP 1117/2014). Malik Nasrullah Awan, ASC a/w Ms. Mehnaz Nadeem,
Respondent-4 and Syed Shozab Zamir son of
Respondent No. 7 for
Respondents No. 1 to 8 (in CP No. 993/2014). Malik Nasrullah Awan, ASC a/w for
Respondents No. 2 to 9 (in CP 1117/2014). Nemo for Applicants (in CMA No. 7061 of 2016).

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD through its Chairman & others--Petitioners

VERSUS

M. SAJID PIRZADA--Respondent

Law: Punjab Cooperative Bank Limited Staff Service Rules, 2010--

Section: 2, 40

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…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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