Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302/34,114/34

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 9

(a) Penal Code (XLV of. 1860) Ss. 302/34 114/34 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9 ¬Appreciation of evidence No conflict existed between ocular account and medical evidence Names of accused, weapon of offence carried by accused, role played by accused and names of eye witnesses were mentioned in the F.I.R. with full description Both complainant and eye witness being residents of place of occurrence, their presence at the spot was natural Electric light at relevant time was mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I. R. No iota of evidence was on record suggesting or proving that complainant had any enmity against accused to falsely depose against them Accused remained fugitive from law Court had to see quality of evidence and not its quantity specially ocular account which in the present case had come from unimpeachable source ¬Nothing was on record to show that eye witnesses had told a lie ¬Occurrence having taken place due to religious differences, case was fully covered by Preamble of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and Special Judge constituted under. Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 was fully competent to try the offence Prosecution had successfully proved motive of occurrence Both parties being known to each other, no question arose that of mistaken identity Section 114, P.P.C. was also applicable in the case as occurrence had taken place due to mischief played by accused who commanded the co accused to commit murder of deceased and co accused did not fire only one shot, but repeated shot which resulted into death of the deceased Prosecution having been successful in proving its case against accused to its hilt through ocular account corroborated by medical evidence and motive, conviction and sentence recorded against accused by Trial Court were maintained. 2002 SCMR 99; 2002 SCMR 199; PLD 1997 SC 529; PLD 1983 SC 393; PLD 1976 SC 53; PLD 2000 SC 458; 2002 SCMR 203; PLD 1997 SC 940 and PLD 1974 SC 87 ref. (b) Criminal trial Appreciation of evidence Court had to see quality of evidence and not quantity thereof specially ocular account when coming from unimpeachable source. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 154 F.I.R., nature of F.I.R. was not a substantive…

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