| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6770 2024 SLD 6770 = 2024 YLR 1662 |
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Criminal Appeal No. 115-M of 2016, decided on 14th June, 2023.
Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Shahid Khan, JJ
Syed Sultanat Khan, Astt: A. G, for the State (Appellant). Hazrat Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court, for the Accused/
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Criminal Appeal No. 115-M of 2016, decided on 14th June, 2023.
Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Shahid Khan, JJ
Syed Sultanat Khan, Astt: A. G, for the State (Appellant). Hazrat Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court, for the Accused/
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The STATE through A.A.G.---Appellant
VERSUS
AKBAR KHAN and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 417(2-A)
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 129(g)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)---Appeal against acquittal---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Accused/respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Incident was an un-seen event, as in the Murasila and the FIR nobody had been cited as an eye-witness of the occurrence rather the dead body of the deceased had been recovered by the local police at the spot, pursuant to information received by the police concerned and that too from an unknown source---Appeal against acquittal being bereft of any merits was dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)--Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding best evidence i.e. Call Data Record (CDR)---Accused/ respondents were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant---Record showed that initially the law was set in motion by the complainant of the case by reporting the matter to the local police in respect of missing of his brother---In said report, it was specifically mentioned by the complainant that at the time of missing of his brother he had cell phone, as such, during the course of inquiry, when the Investigating Officer made a call on the said mobile number, he was informed by an unknown caller/recipient about the presence of the dead body of the deceased lying at the stated spot, therefore, in such scenario, the best piece of evidence available with the prosecution was the CDR data, from which prima facie the identity of the caller could be established--However, on one hand even the mobile number of the Investigating Officer was not mentioned in the Murasila and on the other hand the CDR data in respect of the said cell number was not obtained and secured from the concerned franchise/company in order to establish that the Investigating Officer had in fact made a call on the cell number of the deceased or otherwise---In the subject case, when there were two cell numbers in the field…