| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 3084 2007 SLD 3084 2007 PLJ 380 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 1375 of 2001 and M.R. No. 596 of 2001, heard on 13.12.2006.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY & M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQI, JJ.
Mian Muzaffar Ahmed, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A.H. Masood, Advocate for State in Murder Reference No. 596 of 2001. Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate for State in Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2001.
Crl. A. No. 1375 of 2001 and M.R. No. 596 of 2001, heard on 13.12.2006.
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY & M.A. SHAHID SIDDIQI, JJ.
Mian Muzaffar Ahmed, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. A.H. Masood, Advocate for State in Murder Reference No. 596 of 2001. Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate for State in Criminal Appeal No. 1375 of 2001.
SHAHZAD---Appellant
VS
STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)--Conviction and sentence recorded against accused--Challenge to--Appreciation of evidence--Benefit of doubt--FIR had not been recorded at hospital as per statement of eye-witnesses in manner as claimed by prosecution--Hence, FIR cannot be used as a corroborative piece of evidence to ocular account--Medical evidence is also found in contradiction with ocular account as in FIR it has been stated that appellant had fired shot with mouser hitting deceased on his right flank but one of eye-witnesses stated that shot fired by accused had hit deceased on his left flank--However, according to doctor there was no injury on right or left flank though there was injury on right side of chest and other injuries were on knee and thighs of the deceased--According to medico legal report deceased had received 10 injuries, but only one injury had been attributed to appellant and remaining injuries had been attributed to co-accused with mousers, who have already been acquitted by trial Court through same while disbelieving same eye-witnesses--Prosecution had not been able to prove case against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt--Appellant is acquitted of charge by extending him benefit of doubt--Appeal accepted. [Pp. 385, 386 & 387] A, D, E & F Interested Witnesses-- ----Both eyewitnesses were real paternal cousins of deceased as such they were related inter se with deceased closely--Both eyewitnesses are in contradiction with each other regarding manner in which they were sitting at the shrine--During cross-examination both eyewitnesses failed to give any reasonable explanation for their being present at spot at time of occurrence--Admittedly, they were chance witnesses who were bound to give reasonable explanation for their being present at the spot and witnessing incident but they had failed to do so. [Pp. 385 & 386] B & C PLD 1965 SC 11, 2000 SCMR 1758 & PLJ 2004 SC 552, ref. Judgment Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.--Shahzad appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302(b), PPC vide judgment dated 24.8.2001 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Lahore and was sentenced to death for…
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