Case Details

Citation(s)
2009 SLG 790 2009 SLD 790 2009 MLD 325
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1103 and 1293 of 2001 and M.R. No. 528 of 2001, heard on 20-11-2006.
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, JUSTICE IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Inayat Ullah Cheema and Syed Imdad Hussain Hamdani Hafiz Khan Muhammad Mahal, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal No.1103 of 2001).
Respondent(s) by: M. Aslam Malik (in Murder Reference No.528 of 2001).

KHIZAR HAYAT AND OTHERS

VS

THE STATE AND OTHERS

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,161,265C,340(2),342,374,544A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt-Delay of 13 hours in lodging F.I.R. was not natural and explanation for such delay stood falsified through the statements of the Investigating Officer, which cast doubt on the prosecution story---Complainant was son of deceased while other prosecution witness was real brother of deceased---Both said eye-witnesses were not only related inter se and with the deceased closely, but they were also not residents near the place of incident and their presence at the spot was per chance---Even counsel for the State had conceded that the eye-witnesses had not. been able to establish their presence at the spot---Possibility could not be ruled out that it was an un-witnessed occurrence and after recovery of the dead body, the prosecution story was concocted, otherwise there was no reason to withhold first aid to the deceased who remained alive as per opinion of the Doctor for two hours at least---Circumstances of the case had belied the presence of the prosecution witnesses at the spot---Statements of the eye-witnesses were not confidence inspiring and they were capable of making false statements as the acquitted accused according to the prosecution were armed with guns and were present at the spot, but they allegedly only raised a Lalkara and did not use their arms during the incident, when said acquitted accused were directly connected with the motive---Place of incident was being used by the people, but no witness from the locality, except for close relatives of the deceased were produced by the prosecution---Was not safe to rely upon the statements of the close relatives of the deceased for maintaining the conviction in a murder case---Prosecution had not been able to prove the motive against accused for the commission of the offence and also had not been able to prove the recovery of hatchet from accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Case against accused therefore, was not proved against him beyond doubt---Impugned of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge by extending him benefit of doubt and was released---Murder…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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