Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2222 2026 SLD 2222 = 2026 PCRLJ 875
Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahalwalpur
Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2021 and Criminal Revision No. 66 of 2020, decided on 20th February, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J
   M. Sharif Meo for Appellant.        M. Afzal Taija Defence Counsel.        Zafar Iqbal Soomro, D.D.P.P for the State.        Zafar Iqbal Ghalu for the Complainant.

MUHAMMAD ARIF---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 376, 338-C-

(a) Criminal trial Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In cases of circumstantial evidence, prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence---If any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused.        Rehmat Ullah and 2 others v. The State and others 2024 SCMR 782 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 376 & 338-C---Qatl-i-amd, rape, isqat-i-janin---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the niece of complainant by cutting her throat with sharp-edged weapon---As far as evidence of last seen was concerned, the same came out from the mouth of two witnesses, who were close relatives of deceased---Testimonies of both the said witnesses came up with material contradictions and inconsistencies which made the evidence of last seen highly doubtful---According to the testimony of Investigating Officer, both the witnesses of last seen had failed to point out the place where they met with the appellant and deceased---As per the contents of FIR, the occurrence took place on 30-06-2019 at Asar prayer time and according to the testimony of complainant, police took dead body of deceased to RHC, at about 12:00 p.m. and the dead body of deceased was handed over to him after 02:00 p.m.---Funeral prayer of deceased was conducted after Asar prayer---Witnesses of last seen also reached at RHC, where they disclosed the fact regarding the evidence of last seen of appellant with deceased and then submitted application to police---In such circumstances, if said witnesses informed the evidence of last seen evidence to the complainant before lodging of the FIR then their names should have been mentioned in the FIR---Such self-negating and contradictory statements of the said witnesses reflected that they were not truthful witnesses, rather they were deposing an afterthought, fabricated and concocted story just to create incriminating evidence to strengthen the case of un-witnessed occurrence against the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register