| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 2544 = 2010 SLD 2544 = 2010 YLR 1613 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2006, decided on 24th July, 2009.
Presented By: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Haji Khalid Rehman for Appellant.
Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2006, decided on 24th July, 2009.
Presented By: Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
Haji Khalid Rehman for Appellant.
SHAHADAT ALI ---Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE---Respondent
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302 (b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Occurrence had taken place at 3.30 a.m. and though availability of an electric bulb at the place of occurrence had been mentioned in the F.I.R. and had been deposed about by the eye-witnesses, but the site plan of the place of occurrence, prepared by the draftsman, did not show availability of any such electric bulb anywhere at the place of occurrence--Identity of accused, in circumstances had not conclusively been established before the Trial Court---Complainant was uncle of deceased and one of the prosecution witnesses was also a paternal uncle of deceased, whereas other prosecution witness was a neighbour of the complainant---Record of the case had contradicted the complainant regarding his claim regarding taking the injured victim to the hospital---Injuries allegedly caused by accused to deceased explained in the F.I.R. were described differently by the complainant before the Trial Court---Complainant had sworn an affidavit wherein he had observed that co-accused had been implicated by him in the case on account of some misunderstanding---If co-accused had been implicated by the complainant on the basis of a suspicion then same could equally be true vis-a-vis the accused as well---Co-accused who was attributed specific injuries to deceased had been acquitted by the Trial Court---Statement of prosecution witness had contradicted not only the F.I.R., but also the statement made by complainant before the Trial Court---Other prosecution witness who was a neighbourer of the complainant had admitted before the Trial Court that he had not seen accused causing any injury to deceased---Eye witnesses, in circumstances were unreliable and there was likelihood that they had not seen anybody causing any injury to deceased; and that they had been procured and planted---Motive set up by the prosecution had remained far from being established---Place of occurrence was never proved by the prosecution---No date, time or place of any quarrel taking place between accused and deceased prior to the occurrence; had ever been specified by any prosecution witness---Kassi…