Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 1267 2003 SLD 1267 2003 PCRLJ 1372
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1203 of 1998, Murder Reference No. 54 and Criminal Revision No. 171 of 1999, heard on 31st March, 2003.
IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, C.J. AND PERVAIZ AHMAD, J
Kh. Sultan Ahmad, Sher AfganAsadi and Malik Rabnawaz Khan Niazi for Appellants. M. Asghar Khan Rokhri for the Complainant. Ch. Muhammad Ayyub for the State.

ABDUR RAZZAQ alias NANNA and another

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)/34

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------   ----S: 302(b)/34---Appreciation of evidence---One of the accused persons claimed that he was aged 18 years when his statement under S.3-42, Cr.P.C. was recorded but could not lead evidence in proof of his claim despite `Court had never declined his- request to lead. evidence--¬Contention of accused that he wanted to lead evidence in his defence but he was not afforded any opportunity to make further statement or to lead evidence, was rejected being totally untenable---Both eye-witnesses had clearly testified that occurrence had taken place at a hotel which deceased had obtained on rent---Place of occurrence had been proved to be that very hotel which was being run by deceased and his brothers---Defence plea to the contrary that occurrence had taken place at other hotel, did not have support of any material on record---Motive of occurrence was stated to be the demand for return of loan on which accused became furious and hot words were exchanged between them and due to that grievance accused had caused death to deceased---Even if said aspect of the matter was not proved, it could be inferred that incident had taken place due to some other reasons,. but that itself would not lessen the gravity of the offence of accused---Absence of motive per se would not affect prosecution case in any manner.---No direct enmity of a degree existed between the accused and the complainant which could have prompted the complainant to involve. accused in the case---Accused, in circumstances, were not falsely involved in the case as was claimed by them---Involvement of accused in the case had fully been established--¬Place where incident took place was a Bazar and incident would have/ been seen by a large number of persons; in such a situation false involvement of accused virtually was impossible---Evidence of recovery had further corroborated prosecution case against accused---Report of Forensic Science Laboratory in respect of gun recovered from accused had shown that same was used in occurrence---Contention that accused was minor at time of commission of offence, was fully belied by Birth Certificate---Case against accused having fully been…
🔒
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