| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2937 2004 SLD 2937 2004 PCRLJ 1728 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. Appeal No. 152 of 1992, decided on 25th October, 2003. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2003.
MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, JUSTICE
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Salim for the Complainant. Nemo for the State.
Crl. Appeal No. 152 of 1992, decided on 25th October, 2003. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2003.
MIAN MUHAMMAD AKRAM BAITU, JUSTICE
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khosa for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Salim for the Complainant. Nemo for the State.
GHULAM MUSTAFA --Appellant
VS
THE STATE --Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Motive for commission of crime was that accused who had a bird character used to force and persuade deceased to have friendly relations with him to commit sodomy with him---Deceased having refused to do so, accused due to that grudge had committed murder of deceased---Accused had strong motive against deceased to commit his murder---Contention of accused that procession had failed to establish allegation of motive against accused, was devoid force---Complainant who was father of deceased and other prosecution witness who also was nearest relative of complainant had given ocular account of occurrence which was consistent, cogent and natural---Despite lengthy cross-examination of said witnesses nothing could be brought on record which could have militated against their credibility or veracity of version put forth by them---Mere relationship of said eye-witnesses with deceased, in the absence of any animus on their part against accused, could not be made the basis to brush aside their testimony, which otherwise was convincing and natural---Presence of said eye-witnesses near the venue of occurrence at relevant time, was not just by chance, but was natural as same was the common route---Even a chance and interested witness, could render truthful version and his testimony could be believed in circumstances of a particular case---Accused had not been able to suggest or prove any kind of hostility of such witnesses towards him which could be said to have promoted them to implicate him falsely in the case of heinous nature---Ocular evidence found full corroboration from Medical evidence and it could not be said that Medical evidence was in conflict with ocular evidence---Recovery of Chhuri had also corroborated testimony of eye-witnesses---Conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court against accused, did not call for interference and same was maintained. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Relationship of eye-witnesses with deceased---Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with deceased, in absence of any animus on their part against accused, could not be made…
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