| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2432 2014 SLD 2432 2014 PCRLJ 418 |
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2006, decided on 21st November, 2013. DATE of hearing: 12th November, 2013
NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI AND RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan for
Respondent. Malik Manzoor Ahmed, Standing Counsel for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2005 and Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2006, decided on 21st November, 2013. DATE of hearing: 12th November, 2013
NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI AND RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, JJ
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui for Appellant. Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan for
Respondent. Malik Manzoor Ahmed, Standing Counsel for the State
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(c), 316, 148 & 149---Qatl-e-amd, qatl-e-shibh-i-amd, rioting---Appreciation of evidence---Scuffle had taken place between the parties---Presence of accused on the spot could not be denied, as he himself had received injuries---Parties had thrown stones on each other, but it had not been proved on record that accused had caused injury to the deceased with hatchet---Even the statements of eye-witnesses were belied by medical evidence---Doubts had arisen as to whether the occurrence had actually taken place in the way as described by the prosecution or not---Companions of accused had also received injuries, while from the other side only one lady had received injuries---Fact that as to who was the aggressor, and who had been aggressed upon, was also a matter, which could not be proved---No blood was recovered from any place---Alleged hatchet or the sticks were not recovered from the spot---Specific role having been attributed to accused, Trial Court had rightly convicted him, but conviction of accused under S.316, P.P.C., was not correct, for the reason that said section which related to qatl-e-shibh-e-amd, was not applicable because the record had shown that it was a free fight, and in absence of recovery of any weapon, it could not be said that offence was pre-meditated---Accused, in circumstances, would be convicted under S.302(c), P.P.C. and not under S.316, P.P.C.---Conviction of accused was altered and he was convicted under S.302(c), but sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was proper and sufficient, which was accordingly maintained---Benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. given to accused by the Trial Court, would also remain intact, in circumstances. JUDGMENT RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.---This judgment is directed to dispose of present Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2005, as well as Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2006, arising out of one and the same judgment. 2. Appellant, Muhammad Irshad son of Said Khan was convicted under section 316, P.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years as 'tazeer' and also to pay 'diyat' at the prevailing rates to the legal heirs of the deceased Mst. Ayesha Bibi in case F.I.R. No. 136, dated 30-6-2001, under…
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