Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLG 2191 1992 SLD 2191 1992 PLJ 149
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1988, accepted on 13.1.1992. [On appeal from judgment of Lahore High Court, Dated 12.10.1987, passed in M.R.No. 117 of 1985] Dates of hearing: 12 and 13.1.1992.
DR. NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY AND RUSTAM S. SLDHWA, JJ
Mr. Ijaz Hussein Batalvi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mian Ataur Rahman, AOR for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate, Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousaf Khan, AOR for State. Mr. S.M. Tayyab, Advocate, Supreme Court for Com

MUHAMMAD YOUNAS KHAN--Appellant

VS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(i) Criminal Trial-- —Murder-Offence of-Conviction for-Challenge to-According to eye¬ witnesses, occurrence took place some time after sun-set—Half of stomach of deceased was full of churned food meaning thereby that he had had meals about 2/2 hours before his death—Medical testimony points out occurrence having taken place 2/2^ hours after sun-set, which would be around 7-30/8.30 PM—Held: Medical evidence conflicts with ocular account as regards time of occurrence.           [Pp.l52153]B (ii) Criminal Trial- —Murder—Offence of—Conviction for—Challenge to—PW 7 admitted in cross-examination that he knew difference between pistol and revolver and that revolver did not eject an empty-In FIR both accused are stated to be armed with pistols but what was recovered from them, were revolvers-Probability  that witnesses had identified appellant having fired at deceased because of light flashed by torch, cannot safely be accepted-Held: It is unsafe to rely on ocular testimony which appears to be highly contradictory and discrepant in material particulars and cannot be safely accepted to convict a person on capital charge-Held further. Revolver recovered from appellant and crime empty recovered from spot having been sent together to Laboratory, its incriminatory value is destroyed-Appellant acquitted. [Pp.l53154]C,D,EF (iii) Motive- -—Murder-Offence of-Conviction for-Challenge to-Even if motive as alleged, is believed, it appears that only PW-10 annoyed Jamshed Khan, minor son of appellant, on which wife of appellant had altercation with ladies in house of complainant-No men folk were involved in quarrel that took place between ladies-Motive at best is innocuous and does not appear to be one which would have prompted accused to launch murderous attack-Held: It appears that true motive has not been disclosed but only prosecution can suffer for this silence. [P.152]A JUDGMENT Rustam S. Sidhwa, J.—This is an appeal by Muhammad Younus Khan appellant against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 12.10.1987 dismissing his appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.2.1984 there was a wrestling bout in…
đź”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492