Find a Lawyer

ZEESHAN versus THE STATE

- Section 230b (b) at murder ????? Definition of evidence doubt Doubt benefit of doubt - 'The plaintiff, who was a material witness, did not present the prosecution, even though the trial court took strict action by the accused and his accomplice. The name of the accused came to the surface during the investigation by recording the alleged subpoena on the same day, but said that the material witness was stopped for no apparent reason - all of the prosecution's witnesses named the accused and their accomplices in their statements. Made clear reforms and assign specific roles, which were not listed in their statements under Section 161, CR PC. There were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. The complainant's supplementary statement to include the accused in the case was recorded in the pending phase the No postmortem was made in this case immediately after the victim's death Medical evidence was not confirmed by the prosecution. ? The account presented by the prosecution's witnesses - the complainant, did not provide the details of the attackers and the salient features. This was the location of the testimony of the prosecution witness for the ocular account - an identification parade was necessary when the accused was not named in the FIR, but no such parade was made. The recovery of the pist pistol was helpful for the prosecution. No, as a restorative witness, did not confirm each other. The prosecution had to stand on its own feet and prove its case against the accused and could not take advantage of the weakness in the defense case, but the prosecution. Failed to fulfill its obligation to sue. The shadow of doubt - the only situation, that is

P L D 2017 Lahore 774 

Before Abdul Sami Khan and Raja Shahid Mehmood Abbasi, JJ

ZEESHAN alias SHANI—Appellant

versus

THE STATE —Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.76-J of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 113 of 2010 heard on 14th January, 2016.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)—

— S.302(b)—Qatl-i-amd—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—‘Complainant, who was material witness, was not produced by the prosecution, despite adopting of coercive measures by the Trial Court—Name of accused and his co-accused came on the surface during the course of investigation by recording supplementary statement of complainant, allegedly on the same day, but said material witness was withheld without any cogent reason—All prosecution witnesses made flagrant improvements in their statements by nominating accused and his co-accused and assigning specific role, which were not recorded in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.; contradictions existed in the statements of said witnesses— Supplementary statement of complainant was recorded at belated stage in order to involve accused in the case—Autopsy in the case was not carried out soon after death of the deceased—Medical evidence adduced by prosecution was not corroborating ocular account furnished by prosecution witnesses—Complainant, did not give the description and salient features of the assailants; same was the position of testimony of prosecution witness of ocular account—When accused were not nominated in the FIR, identification parade was necessary, but no such parade was conducted—Recovery of pistol, was of no help to the prosecution, as recovery witnesses, did not corroborate each other—Prosecution, had to prove its case against accused by standing on its own legs and it could not take any benefit from weakness of the defence case, but prosecution failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against accused beyond the shadow of doubt—Single circumstance, which would create reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case, was sufficient to give benefit of the same to accused—Present case was replete with circumstances which had created serious doubts about the prosecution case—Prosecution had failed to produce cogent, reliable, trustworthy and sure footed evidence to prove, heads of charge against accused—Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, were set aside, accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against him, extending him the benefit of doubt. [pp. 779, 780, 781, 782, 783] A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1 & J

Riaz Ahmad v. The State 2010 SCMR 849; Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State 2009 SCMR 1410; Muhammad Shah v. The State 2010 SCMR 1009 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 ref.

Malik Abdul Qayyum Khan for Appellant.

Muhammad Waqas Anwar, D.P.G. with Qaiser Qureshi, S.I. for the State.

, *

Arif Majeed for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 14th January, 2016.

law websites from Daur lawyer