Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 635 2006 SLD 635 2006 YLR 176
Sindh High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 50 of 1999, decided & hearing on 7-10-2005.
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI, JUSTICE
Syed Madad Ali Shah for Appellant. Rasheed Ahmed Qureshi, Asstt. A.G. for the State.

DAROO ALIAS DUR MUHAMMAD

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 308

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 38

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 308---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.38---Appreciation of evidence---Copy of Roznamcha entry, under which complainant/Investigating Officer of crime, had visited house of accused, had not been produced by the prosecution---Complainant/Investigating Officer, when visited house of accused and found dead body of deceased/son of accused, in 'Kaffan', had also found mother of deceased beside dead body, but Investigating Officer, did not either bother to make her complainant of crime or even to record her statement under S.161, Cr. P. C., which later on was recorded after three days, without any plausible explanation from prosecution side in that regard---Investigating Officer, also did not bother to arrange some private Mashirs for recovery of blood stained hatchet from accused or recovery of blood stained clothes of deceased and no plausible explanation was available for said violation of S.103, Cr.P.C. from prosecution side---Sealed parcel containing blood stained hatchet, blood stained clothes, etc., was received in office of Chemical Examiner after delay of about one month and twelve days from its dispatch and prosecution evidence was silent on that point---Material contradictions in statements of Investigating Officer. and Mashirs of recovery of blood stained hatchet, also found full support from statement of prosecution witnesses available in the Court file---All such factors not only had made whole prosecution story with regard to recovery of blood stained hatchet from accused doubtful, but were further belied from post-mortem report---Material discrepancies in time of incident, time of death of deceased and time of post-mortem report, were also duly supported from case record, which had created further doubt about actual nature of incident and time of its occurrence---Submission with regard to violation of provision of Art.38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat; 1984 had also force and was fully supported---Role of mother of deceased, who was posed to be sole eye-witness, was very strange and did not appeal to a prudent mind---Shaky nature of mother's evidence, was also corroborated from her…
🔒
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