| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6461 2024 SLD 6461 = 2024 YLR 1099 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1503, 1574, Criminal Revision No. 3600 and Murder Reference No. 42 of 2023, decided on 28th September, 2023.
Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Farooq Haider, JJ
Muhammad Ashraf Kamboh for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.1503 of 2023). Asghar Ali Gill for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.1574 of 2023). Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Rana Muhammad Azam Khan for the Complainant (in Crl. Appeal No. 1503 of 2023, Crl. Appeal No. 1574 of 2023 and for the Petitioner in Crl. Revision No.3600 of 2023).
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1503, 1574, Criminal Revision No. 3600 and Murder Reference No. 42 of 2023, decided on 28th September, 2023.
Before Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Farooq Haider, JJ
Muhammad Ashraf Kamboh for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.1503 of 2023). Asghar Ali Gill for Appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.1574 of 2023). Munir Ahmad Sial, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State. Rana Muhammad Azam Khan for the Complainant (in Crl. Appeal No. 1503 of 2023, Crl. Appeal No. 1574 of 2023 and for the Petitioner in Crl. Revision No.3600 of 2023).
ASIF ALI and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),365,201,34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant after abducting him---Last seen evidence had been produced by two witnesses---Said witnesses claimed that they were working as property dealers and on 09.09.2020 went to place "MF" in connection with some property---On their return, said witnesses stopped motorbike at cigarette Corner to purchase cigarette where they saw accused persons and deceased having cold drinks---However, said witnesses neither could tell the distance between their village and place "MF" where they had gone nor could they prove the cause for which statedly they had gone there---Site plan produced by the prosecution during trial of the case did not reflect presence of said witnesses at stated place as well as of the accused persons and deceased of the case "with cold drinks" and even any shop/stall/ Khokha of cold drinks/cigarettes was not mentioned therein---Said site plan also did not show availability of any bulb there and even any shop keeper of shop/ stall/Khokha of cold drinks/cigarettes neither joined the investigation nor was produced during trial of the case---Any other site plan showing place where both witnesses saw accused persons and deceased with cold drinks was not available on record---Both said witnesses even did not produce their motorcycle during trial of the case--Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was accordingly allowed.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Presence of witnesses of last seen evidence at the venue doubtful--Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of…