| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1793 2025 SLD 1793 = 2025 YLR 215 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 326 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022, decided on 29th October, 2024.
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Jahandad Kakar, Izharul Haq and Abdul Hadi Tareen for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022). Muhammad Yousaf, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022). Amanullah Kakar for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022). Amanullah Kakar for the Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022). Jahandad Kakar, Izharul Haq and Abdul Hadi Tareen for
Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022). Muhammad Yousaf, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022).
Criminal Appeal No. 326 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022, decided on 29th October, 2024.
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Jahandad Kakar, Izharul Haq and Abdul Hadi Tareen for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022). Muhammad Yousaf, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022). Amanullah Kakar for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2022). Amanullah Kakar for the Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022). Jahandad Kakar, Izharul Haq and Abdul Hadi Tareen for
Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022). Muhammad Yousaf, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 2022).
OSAMA and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),201
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 39,40,43
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164
(a) Criminal trial-------Circumstantial evidence---Scope--- Circumstantial evidence is always not of the required standard and quality, rather it is dangerous to explicitly place reliance upon such evidence---Circumstantial evidence must be of such a nature, where different pieces of evidence must make a chain of events, where one end of it touches the dead body and the other end the neck of accused---If such link is found missing, the whole chain will break down and no conviction can be recorded on such circumstantial evidence.Imran Alias Dullay v. The State 2015 SCMR 155; Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274 and Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing evidence of an offence to disappear or giving false information---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence--Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Complainant testified that on 22.09.2022 at 08:30 pm, while he was sitting along with his brothers and nephew in their shop, appellants and proclaimed offender came there and invited the deceased for dinner and promised to pay the loan of Rs.150,000/-, who went with them, but when he did not return home till morning and his phone number was also found switched off, they went to the Levies Station and reported the matter with nomination of the appellants--Appellant on his arrest disclosed the commission of murder and got recovered the dead body of deceased---Other two witnesses also reiterated and affirmed the testimony of the complainant---All the three witnesses were cross-examined, but the defence failed to extract any favorable reply from them, demonstrating that their statements had gone unshaken---Last seen was a weak type of evidence, but if such evidence was found in line with the other pieces of evidence, making a chain of events which led to the culprits, then not only it had relevance, but could be considered as a material evidence, having worth of credence---In the instant case, the prosecution had met the conditions and criteria of last seen evidence so furnished by complainant and other two witnesses, thus, last seen…