| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2495 2014 SLD 2495 2014 YLR 967 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 202-J of 2011 and Murder Reference No.53 of 2010, heard on 13th December, 2013
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD AND ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JJ
Ms. Faiqa Mirza assisted by Ms. Saiqa Javed and Ms. Sanah Ashraf for Appellant. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Ch. M.S. Shad for the Complainant
Criminal Appeal No. 202-J of 2011 and Murder Reference No.53 of 2010, heard on 13th December, 2013
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD AND ABDUL SAMI KHAN, JJ
Ms. Faiqa Mirza assisted by Ms. Saiqa Javed and Ms. Sanah Ashraf for Appellant. Mirza Abid Majeed, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State. Ch. M.S. Shad for the Complainant
ZAHEER AHMADVsThe STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Reduction in sentence---Mitigating circumstances---Eye-witness account was furnished by the complainant and other prosecution witnesses, who had rendered full support to the case of prosecution---Incident was a broad-daylight occurrence, and prosecution witnesses had explained each and every segment of occurrence in the most scrupulous way during their statements---Said witnesses had also explained the mode and manner of the taking place of occurrence---Prosecution witnesses were ready to swear on Holy Quran that accused was the actual accused; they had sufficiently proved their presence at the place of occurrence at relevant time; and witnessing the occurrence, vis-Ã -vis the culpability of accused in the case---Minor contradictions, in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, was not fatal to prosecution case---Discrepancies in the medical evidence, and the ocular account, did not carry much weight, especially in the circumstances when otherwise the ocular account was proved through trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence---Matter was reported to the Police, with sufficient promptitude; and no unconscionable or inexcusable delay had taken place in registration of the F.I.R.---Delay, if any in conducting the post mortem of the deceased, was on the part of Doctor; and delay alone could not destroy the prosecution case in presence of the confidence inspiring evidence---Parties to the case, were known to each other, and being closely related to each other, there was no chance of mistaken identity or substitution of accused with real culprit---Bald plea taken by accused that the deceased was murdered by someone else, was an afterthought, taken at belated stage, just to save his skin---Medical evidence had provided full support to the prosecution version---Forensic Science Laboratory's report was positive; and motive set up by prosecution in the F.I.R., was not proved---Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Case, however carried some exceptional/ mitigating circumstances in favour of accused---Sentence of…
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