| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2097 2015 SLD 2097 2015 YLR 1416 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 46 andConfirmation Case No. 7 of 2005, decided on 5th March, 2013.dates of hearing: 7th and 26th February, 2013
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ
Shahab Sarki and Abdul Rasheed Nizamani for Appellant. Khadim Hussain Khoonharo, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeal No. 46 andConfirmation Case No. 7 of 2005, decided on 5th March, 2013.dates of hearing: 7th and 26th February, 2013
SAJJAD ALI SHAH AND NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JJ
Shahab Sarki and Abdul Rasheed Nizamani for Appellant. Khadim Hussain Khoonharo, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
MUHAMMAD TARIQ RAZA ATTARIvsThe STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)(e)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.40---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction for ransom, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---No eye-witness account was available in the case, but incriminating conduct and information furnished by accused, leading to recovery of dead body of abductee boy of 6 years old had been proved by overwhelming evidence---Chain of events, dispelled any doubt---No enmity, whatsoever had been alleged by accused with the complainant---Accused being brother-in-law of the complainant, complainant had no motive to falsely implicate accused in murder of his son---Prosecution witness, who had identified accused in the court was an independent witness, his evidence was trustworthy---Other prosecution witness, who was friend of the complainant, had also no motive to falsely implicate accused in the case---Evidence of Investigating Officer was straightforward, and no mala fide against him had been brought on record---No infirmity or defect in his evidence had been pointed out---No reason existed to disbelieve such confidence inspiring evidence---Information furnished by accused to the Investigating Officer, could be used against him under Art.40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984--- Medical evidence had corroborated ocular account---Prosecution having proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt, accused was rightly convicted and awarded death penalty---Nothing substantial was found in the statement of accused recorded on oath to discredit such confidence inspiring evidence which had rightly been discarded by Trial Court---No mitigating or extenuating circumstances were available to award lesser punishment to accused as offence against accused carried capital punishment---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused, were maintained, in circumstances. Nazir Shehzad and another v. The State 2009 SCMR 1440 and Miss Najiba and another v. Ahmed Sultan alias Sattar and 2 others 2001 SCMR 988 rel. JUDGMENT NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---This judgment will dispose of Special Anti-Terrorism Appeal No.46 of 2005 and Confirmation Case No.07/2005,…