| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 697 1983 SLD 697 = 1983 PLD 117 |
Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1980, decided on 4th October, 1982. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-2-1979, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 1977/Murder Reference No. 104 of 1977).
Present : Muhammad Haleem, Actg. C. J., Zaffar Hussain Mirza and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. I, 2 and 4. Raja M. Akram, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent No. 9. Dates of hearing : 5th and 6th July, 1982.
MEHRBAN-Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL HAMID alias MAJID (HAMIDULLAH) AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 148 , 302 , 307 , 149
Penal Code (XLV -of 1860)-
S. 148/302/307/149--Rioting--Murder-Appeal against acquittal Appreciation of evidence--Case against accused respondents primarily resting upon ocular testimony furnished by prosecution witnesses M, J and I first two having received injuries in transaction-Deceased's father having arrived at scene of occurrence after receipt of fatal injuries by deceased hence such person could not be an eye-witness-No empties recovered and rifle secured a licensed one, hence no circumstantial evidence available against respondents-Inherent infirmities existing in account of occurrence given by. prosecution eye-witnesses and certain aspects of their account not appealing to reason and apparently inconsistent with common course of human conduct Circumstances raising doubt as. to presence of prosecution witness M at spot and his version not convincing-Eye-witnesses speak of only one shot having been fired at deceased R but he received two injuries-Pellet recovered from deceased indicating a shot-gun having been fired at deceased whereas prosecution story throughout being three respondents being armed with rifles and rest with hatchets-No evidence as to any of accused having been armed with a weapon combining in itself a shotgun and a rifle-No motive shown against respondents for killing deceased R-.Father of R proved to have been a witness against deceased B in a pending murder case-Respondents also appearing to have approached police station with a counter version and produced gun involved in case-Held: Nothing in High Court's refusal to rely on ground of their being closely related to deceased B and M as well as inter se and there being serious animosity between parties-Testimony of partisan witnesses especially in background of enmity-Cannot as a rule of prudence be relied upon without independent corroboration Independent corroboration not existing, circumstances reflecting upon honesty of investigation, true facts having been withheld from Court, order of acquittal passed by High Court not open to exception.-[Appeal against acquittal-Evidence].