Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302,392,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103

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

Section: 22

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss. 302, 392 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine in depth the evidentiary value of identification test and recoveries. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 392 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.22---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Re-appraisal of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Recovery of case property---Accused was arrested in some other case and was sent to judicial lockup, where prosecution witnesses of the present case identified him during identification parade---Trial Court convicted the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence in shape of last seen witness, identification parade and recovery of identity card and bank pass book of deceased on the pointation of accused from hotel---Sentence and conviction awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Circumstantial evidence should be like a well knit chain whose one end should point to accused and the other to deceased---Evidence of last seen furnished by prosecution witnesses and evidence of identification test were not worthy of any credence---Statement of doctor revealed only cause of death and did not lead to assailants---None from the hotel staff was cited as witness and no documentary evidence was collected by investigating officer in proof of stay of accused in the hotel, nor statement of manager or any other member of staff of hotel was recorded in that context---Such conduct was most unlikely that assailant who had taken care to hide his crime, would keep useless incriminating evidence intact---High Court knowing that recovery evidence was of no value, did not mention it in its whereby appeal was dismissed---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused, therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to accused were set aside and accused was acquitted---Appeal was allowed. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against judgment, dated 20-10-2003 handed down by the learned Judge in…

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