| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1792 2025 SLD 1792 = 2025 YLR 197 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 58520-J and Criminal Revision No. 49773 of 2020, heard on 14th May, 2024
Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J
Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob for Appellant No. 1. Usman Sarwar and Miss Samra Malik for
Respondent No. 2. Miss Asmat Parveen, D.D.P.P. for the State. Rai Usman Ahmad and Adil Noor Ahmad for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 58520-J and Criminal Revision No. 49773 of 2020, heard on 14th May, 2024
Before Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J
Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob for Appellant No. 1. Usman Sarwar and Miss Samra Malik for
Respondent No. 2. Miss Asmat Parveen, D.D.P.P. for the State. Rai Usman Ahmad and Adil Noor Ahmad for the Complainant.
MUHAMMAD UMAR and others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),460,411
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 22
(a) Criminal trial-------Circumstantial evidence---Conviction---Scope---It is imperative for the prosecution to provide all links in chain as unbroken, where one end of the same touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused.Muhammad Sohail alias Samma and others v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1652 and Meer Nawaz alias Meero v. The State PLJ 2022 Cr.C 955 ref.Muhammad Tayab and another The State and others 2023 YLR 2207 and Lejzor Teper v. The Queen PLD 1952 Privy Council 119 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 460 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witness at the spot doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of step daughter and granddaughter of complainant and in addition to that stealing some household articles---Prosecution produced son of the complainant who with the help of neighbour while scaling over to the place of occurrence had viewed the deadbody of step daughter of complainant lying on the bed and that of his granddaughter in other room on the carpet with tied hands and feet and associated injuries on their bodies as mentioned in FIR---Said neighbor did not appear as a witness in the dock and Investigating Officer in his deposition did not mention presence of son of complainant at the crime scene when he first visited the place of occurrence---Though it was stated that Investigating Officer recorded the statement of many people including son of complainant at the spot but presence of witness in question was doubtful in the sense that he had not been cited as attesting witness on any memo. of spot recoveries---Nonappearance of neighbor and due to death of complainant single testimony of son of complainant in the form of res gestae could not be corroborated---Thus, as first relevant fact became doubtful it put a blur on rest of the evidence of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 460 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night,…