| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1577 2008 SLD 1577 2008 SCMR 6 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos.274 and 275 of 2003, decision dated: 17-09-2007.(On appeal against the judgment, dated 11-3-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeals Nos.917 and 1043 of 1998, 98/J and Murder Reference No.242-T of 1998)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, NASIR-UL-MULK, CH. IJAZ AHMED AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ
J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Appellant. K. Srinivasan, K.C. Rajappa, N.C. Rangarajan and K. Venkataswamy for the
Respondent. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2003). Jehanzeb Tamman, A
Criminal Appeals Nos.274 and 275 of 2003, decision dated: 17-09-2007.(On appeal against the judgment, dated 11-3-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Appeals Nos.917 and 1043 of 1998, 98/J and Murder Reference No.242-T of 1998)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, NASIR-UL-MULK, CH. IJAZ AHMED AND SYED, JAMSHED ALI, JJ
J. Jayaraman and Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram for the Appellant. K. Srinivasan, K.C. Rajappa, N.C. Rangarajan and K. Venkataswamy for the
Respondent. Iqbal Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2003). Jehanzeb Tamman, A
AKHTAR ALI and others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302/452/394/397/449/109/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Reappraisal of evidence---Acquittal of five accused and conviction of remaining three accused by Trial Court on basis of same evidence---Validity---F.I.R. had been registered against- unknown persons on basis of statement of complainant with unexplained delay of 10/11 hours---Complainant in his supplementary statement had nominated all accused persons while attributing to them specific role and specific injuries inflicted by them to deceased---According to complainant, one convicted accused was residing in same Dera, where occurrence had taken place---Complainant had taken altogether U-Turn from his previous stand, which had created serious doubts in prosecution story---Reliance could not be placed on supplementary statement of complainant for being obviously false---Case of convicted accused could not be distinguished from acquitted co-accused---Such unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R. had provided enough time to complainant to deliberate, consult and fabricate story---Such unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R. would lead to inference that occurrence was un-witnessed---Possibility of false involvement of convicted accused could not be ruled out---Credibility of ocular evidence was not divisible---Accused could not be convicted on basis of same evidence without independent corroboration---Subsequent supplementary statement of complainant could not be equated with F.I.R. or read as part of F.I.R., rather same would be considered as statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution had not proved its case against convicted accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Defence plea appeared to be reasonable, thus, convicted accused were entitled to benefit of doubt as of right and not as a matter of grace---Convicted accused were acquitted of the charge in circumstances. Muhammad Rafique's case 1994 SCMR 1169; Qalab Ali's case 2005 SCMR 1857; Rahab's case 2001 SCMR 1745; Rahab's case 2002 SCMR 233; Khalid Javed's case 2003 SCMR 1419; Ghulam Muhammad's case PLD 1975 SC 588; Sheral alias Sher Muhammad's case 1999 SCMR 697; Ata Muhammad's case 1995 SCMR 599; Faiz…
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