| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 4271 2024 PLJ 537 , 2024 SLD 4271 |
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. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner. Mr. Jahanzeb Mahsud, ASC for
Respondent No. 1. Mr. Naseer ud Din, ASC via video link from Peshawar on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 2-5. Nemo for
Respondent No. 6.
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. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR for Petitioner. Mr. Jahanzeb Mahsud, ASC for
Respondent No. 1. Mr. Naseer ud Din, ASC via video link from Peshawar on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 2-5. Nemo for
Respondent No. 6.
SHAH MADAR KHAN--Petitioner
VERSUS
TARIQ DAUD 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