| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLD 170 = 2026 SLG 170 = 2026 LHC 945 = 2026 PLJ 278 |
Crl. Appeal No. 1566-J of 2019, Crl. Appeal No.1567-J of 2019, Crl. Revision No.469 of 2019.
PRESENT; (Sardar Akbar Ali) Judge
Date of hearing 26.01.2026 Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 1566 of 2019 by: Chaudhary Umar Hayat, Advocate along with the appellant. Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 1567 of 2019 by: M/s Ch. Muhammad Arshad Gujjar and Rana Muhammad Nadeem Kanjoo, Advocates. State by: Mr. Tanvir Haider Buzdar, ADPP along with Yaseen, SI. Complainant by: Ch. Akbar Ali, Advocate.
(Allah Ditta
VERSUS
The State), (Ijaz Ahmad versus The State), (Bashir Ahmad versus The State, etc)
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 173, 342, 382-B, 103, 544-A
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 302(B), 394, 34
Summary
The High Court set aside the conviction of the appellants under section 302(b)/34 PPC on the ground that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The ocular account was found unreliable due to inordinate delay in FIR, chance witnesses, dishonest improvements, contradictory identification, absence of source of light, unnatural conduct of witnesses, and defective identification parade. Medical and forensic evidence, being merely corroborative, could not independently sustain conviction once the ocular account collapsed. Recoveries were discarded due to violation of section 103 Cr.P.C. The appellants were acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt, and the complainant’s revision for enhancement of sentence was dismissed.
Tag Line
Where ocular evidence is doubtful, tainted by delay, contradictions, and defective identification, conviction cannot be sustained; even a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
ORDER;