| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1930 2008 SLD 1930 2008 PLD 6 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeals Nos.7 and 8 of 2007, decision dated: 14-12-2007
MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHARY, C.J., AND KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMED, J
Abdul Majeed Mallick, Advocate for Appellants. Muzaffar Ali Zaffar, Additional Advocate-General for the State. Ch. Lal Hussain, Advocate for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeals Nos.7 and 8 of 2007, decision dated: 14-12-2007
MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHARY, C.J., AND KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMED, J
Abdul Majeed Mallick, Advocate for Appellants. Muzaffar Ali Zaffar, Additional Advocate-General for the State. Ch. Lal Hussain, Advocate for the Complainant.
MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another
VS
TARIQ MAHMOOD and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Counter-version---Principles---Major contradictions existed among the eye-witnesses who were real brothers of deceased, regarding occurrence, which had created reasonable doubt---Story as narrated by all said eye-witnesses did not inspire confidence---Blood or bloodstained clay was not recovered from the place of occurrence and no inquest report or injury sheet was placed before the Court along with the challan---Such factor had created doubt regarding place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence---Important eye-witness in the case was not produced by the prosecution in support of the version, which clearly meant that prosecution was of the view that he would not support its version---On the very first day, a counter-version was pleaded by accused, and statement of Investigating Officer lent support to said counter-version---Investigating Officer was legally obliged to consider and probe into the said version, but that had not been done in the case, which had clearly revealed that the police had conducted investigation ex party---Police was bent upon to challan accused irrespective of the fact whether he committed the offence or not and the police was not going to consider any other version---Where a version had been adopted by accused; and it was not possible for the court to hold that the version given by accused was not absolutely false, then the benefit of doubt was to go to accused---Accused sustained injuries and was examined by the Doctor, which factors had created doubt regarding version of the prosecution---Even otherwise the version of prosecution was not proved by evidence of prosecution---Story narrated by the eye-witnesses did not find corroboration from the report of Fire-arms Expert---Story of prosecution was not free from doubt in circumstances---Prosecution having failed to prove case against accused beyond any doubt, sentence and conviction awarded to accused by the Trial Court and Shariat Court, were set aside and accused was set at liberty, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of…
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