Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1499 2026 SLD 1499 = 2026 PLJ 120
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 47572 & Crl. R. No. 60819 of 2023, decided on 16.9.2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
Mr. Muhammad Aurangzeb Khan Daha and Ms. Iram Sohail, Advocates for Accused/Appellant. Mr. Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Complainant in Person. Date of hearing: 16.9.2025.

JAMROZ KHAN--Appellant

VERSUS

STATE etc.--Respondents

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302(b)

PLJ 2026 Cr.C. 120 [Lahore High Court, Lahore] Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Qatl-e-amd--Medical evidence--Benefit of doubt--It is trite that when prosecution has no evidence on ocular side, other circumstances available in this case though are not important but for sake of ascertaining their value, it is essential to be discussed--It was duty to be discharged even in terms if such GSR was not on hands of deceased, it could then help to rule out possibility of suicide to some extent--Place of occurrence was also required to be examined keenly, so as to track any other evidence available at site, but prosecution agency was not serious to dig out such fact--Thus, it remained an unanswered theory whether, it was a suicide or homicide which creates a doubt in prosecution story and benefit of doubt always leans in favour of accused--The prosecution in favour of murder theory that doctor has not observed any exit wound on body of deceased which shows that it was not a wound with dominant hand by deceased, but with a fire from a little distance made by accused/appellant--Firstly, had it been a fire from a little distance it would not have been with description of satellite wound and if such injury had been caused by accused/appellant surely with tight hand firmly then there was every possibility that bullet would have exited from back of skull, but when fire is made with friendly hand, its loose control gets penetration of bullet obliquely which causes bullet to spin in cranial cavity due to ricochet effect and in such situation it will not be exited from skull--The prosecution has failed to establish charge against accused/appellant beyond any shadow of doubt and it is trite that in order to extend benefit of doubt to an accused person, it is not necessary that there should be several circumstances creating doubt, rather one reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused.                          [Pp. 124, 126 & 127] A, B, C & D 2023 LHC 1090; 2024 SCMR 156;…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register