| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1522 2008 SLD 1522 2008 SCMR 158 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.537-L of 2006, decision dated: 28-08-2007.(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29-5-2006 passed in Criminal Revision No.755 of 2001)
FALAK SHER, TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ
Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Pervaiz Alamgir, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State
Criminal Petition No.537-L of 2006, decision dated: 28-08-2007.(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 29-5-2006 passed in Criminal Revision No.755 of 2001)
FALAK SHER, TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND CH. IJAZ AHMED, JJ
Sardar Khurram Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Pervaiz Alamgir, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State
MUHAMMAD KHALID KHAN
VS
ABDULLAH and others
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal by High Court---Reappraisal of evidence---Testimony of eye-witnesses including the complainant did not inspire confidence, who were chance witnesses and they had not reasonably explained their presence at the spot at the relevant time---Complainant through had introduced two eye-witnesses, yet had produced only one---Names of the newly-added eye-witnesses were mentioned in the F.I.R., which had been disclosed to the Investigating Officer after some weeks of the occurrence---Eye-witnesses being admittedly inimical towards the accused, unimpeachable evidence was required to corroborate the ocular testimony for sustaining conviction, which was lacking in the case---Said grounds which found favour with High Court in passing the of acquittal were neither fanciful nor conjectural and the same were backed by the material on record---Crime empties though secured from the spot were not even sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison---Motive also was not explicit and was rather vague---Leave to appeal was declined to complainant in circumstances. ORDER TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Respondent Abdullah and Najeeb Ullah were tried along with six others for the murder of Shahjehan in the case registered vide FIR. No.216 dated 29-10-1998 registered at Police Station Mochh under sections 302/34, P.P.C. and vide the judgment dated 24-9-2001 while acquitting the rest, the learned trial Court convicted the respondents under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced them to death and also with a fine of Rs.10,000 each. The judgment was challenged in revision by the complainant and by respondents-convicts in appeal. The learned High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed complainant's revision petition. Consequently the respondents stand acquitted vide the impugned judgment. 2. The prosecution case as given in para.2 of the impugned judgment is as under:- "At about 12-00 noon Abdullah and Najeebullah appellants, armed with a Kalashnikov each, emerged there from the Sarkandas and both of them fired bursts from their Kalashnikovs and the bullets hit Shah Jahan Khan on…
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