| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 1205 2007 SLD 1205 2007 MLD 1175 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2001 and M.R. No. 596 of 2001, heard on 13-12-2006.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mian Muzaffar Ahmed
Respondent(s) by: A.H. Masood (in Murder Reference No. 596 of 2001).
Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2001 and M.R. No. 596 of 2001, heard on 13-12-2006.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mian Muzaffar Ahmed
Respondent(s) by: A.H. Masood (in Murder Reference No. 596 of 2001).
SHAHZAD
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---F.I.R. had not been recorded at Hospital as per statements of the eye-witnesses in the manner as claimed by prosecution---F.I.R., in circumstances could not be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to the ocular account and prosecution evidence had to be seen with utmost care and caution---Both eye-witnesses being real paternal cousins of deceased, were close relatives inter se and also with deceased---Both eye-witnesses were in contradiction with each other regarding the manner in which they were sitting in the shrine---Both eye-witnesses during cross-examination had failed to give any reasonable explanation for their being present at the spot at the time of occurrence---Said witnesses were chance witnesses who were bound to give reasonable explanation for their being present at the spot and witnessing the incident, but they had failed to do so---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot was also found doubtful from evidence of court witnesses---Evidence of court witnesses showed that it was an un-witnessed occurrence and ocular account was concocted afterwards---Medical evidence was also found in contradiction with ocular account in the F.I.R.---Medical evidence, in circumstances was also not in line with ocular account---Medico-legal Report revealed that deceased had received 10 injuries, but only one injury had been attributed to accused and remaining injuries had. been attributed to co-accused who had already been acquitted by the Trial Court through the same while disbelieving same eye-witnesses---Respectables of the locality had not been joined in the recovery proceedings which was violative of S.103, Cr.P.C. and it was not the case of prosecution that private persons of the locality were not available or they were reluctant to join the recovery proceedings---Both the recovery witnesses were also found in contradiction with each other---Statements of recovery witnesses had been recorded on the next day at the police station---Empties had not been sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory immediately after its recovery, but were sent after arrest of accused…
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