| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 3012 2007 SLD 3012 2007 PLJ 118 |
Federal Shariat Court
Crl. As. Nos. 11/L, 26/L and Crl. M.R. No. 9/L of 2002,
HAZIQUL KHAIRI, C.J., DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN, JJ
Mr. Justin Gill, Samson Juseph and Akbar Munawar Durrani, Advocates for Appellants. Syed Fazal Hussain Jafferi, Advocate for State.
Crl. As. Nos. 11/L, 26/L and Crl. M.R. No. 9/L of 2002,
HAZIQUL KHAIRI, C.J., DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN AND MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN, JJ
Mr. Justin Gill, Samson Juseph and Akbar Munawar Durrani, Advocates for Appellants. Syed Fazal Hussain Jafferi, Advocate for State.
IQBAL MASIH and another--Appellants
VS
STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (VII of 1979)-- ----S. 12--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 201--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 382-A--Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt--Deposition of complainant, had been supported by two prosecution witnesses--The witnesses had deposed about the extra-judicial confession made separately by accused persons in the presence of their father one after the other--One of accused persons, specifically confessed that he had killed after committing sodomy with him--Accused repeatedly requested for getting pardon from the father of deceased--One of said prosecution witnesses was Lambardar of the village and enjoyed respectable position--Other one was a cultivator by profession--Prosecution had examined two other prosecution witnesses who had last seen deceased being taken away by accused inside his house--Both prosecution witnesses were consistent in their statements; however, their statements did not inspire confidence for the reason that they had seen accused taking away deceased, but never informed complainant for several days, despite the fact that they being relatives of deceased were worriedly searching deceased--Recovery of Clothes and shoes on pointation of accused did not inspire confidence as it appeared unnatural on the part of accused to have kept Chadar and shoes of deceased in his house after committing his murder--Such recovery was effected 15 days after occurrence--Accused had ample time at his disposal to destroy same--Case of prosecution against accused was doubtful and as such he was entitled to get the benefit of said doubt--Quality of evidence brought by the prosecution, was not sufficient to sustain charge against accused for such a heinous offence--Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by trial Court were set aside extending him benefit of doubt and he was acquitted of the charges and was released from jail. [P. ] A, B, C & D Judgment Dr. Fida Muhammad Khan, J.--These appeals separately filed by Iqbal Masih and Shoukat Masih, sons of Rehmat Masih, are directed against the judgment, dated 11-12-2001, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,…
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