| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2355 2015 SLD 2355 2015 PCRLJ 895 |
Federal Shariat Court
Jail Criminal Appeals Nos. 15/I, 16/I, 17/I, 18/I, 19/I and Criminal Revision No. 2/Q of 2014, decided on 17th February, 2015. DATE of hearing: 15th January, 2015.
SHEIKH NAJAM UL HASAN, RIAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ZAHOOR AHMED SHAHWANI, JJ
Javed Aziz Sindhu for Appellants (in Jail Criminal Appeals). Mazullah Barkandi for Petitioner/Complainant (in Criminal Revision No. 2/Q of 2014). Miss Ribina Butt on behalf of A.G. Balochistan for the State.
Jail Criminal Appeals Nos. 15/I, 16/I, 17/I, 18/I, 19/I and Criminal Revision No. 2/Q of 2014, decided on 17th February, 2015. DATE of hearing: 15th January, 2015.
SHEIKH NAJAM UL HASAN, RIAZ AHMAD KHAN AND ZAHOOR AHMED SHAHWANI, JJ
Javed Aziz Sindhu for Appellants (in Jail Criminal Appeals). Mazullah Barkandi for Petitioner/Complainant (in Criminal Revision No. 2/Q of 2014). Miss Ribina Butt on behalf of A.G. Balochistan for the State.
NADEEM AHMED and others
VS
The STATE and others
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 396---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Dacoity with murder--- Appreciation of evidence--- Confession--- Sentence, enhancement of---No direct ocular evidence of the occurrence was available and case of prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence---Confession recorded by Judicial Magistrate, contained certificate of the Magistrate to the effect that confession was true and voluntary---Confessional statement, though had been retracted, yet was corroborated on all material particulars, and the same was sufficient for conviction, in view of recovery of weapon of offence, mobile phone of the deceased; computerized weighbridge receipts/bill from accused persons; and recovery of ropes, plastic pipe, blood-stained shirt, blankets and towel from the place of occurrence---Delay of three days in recording of confessional statement, could not be considered, because confessional statement was found true, voluntary, and not an outcome of duress and coercion, and the Trial Court had rightly believed the same, and took the same into consideration against accused---Nothing was on record to suggest that prosecution witness had deposed falsely against accused on account of any enmity or animosity---Statement of witness was corroborated by confession---Prosecution had been able to substantiate the charge against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by means of connecting all the links of the chain, in the shape of strong circumstantial evidence---Defence plea, adopted by accused persons, seemed to be afterthought and could not be relied upon---Accused persons had committed the offence punishable under S.396, P.P.C., as the number of accused was more than four---One of the accused persons, remained along with other accused persons from the beginning to the end and also helped the said accused persons in throwing away/disposing of the deceased in bushes after tying the body---Said accused was not entitled for any leniency/lesser punishment---In view of role, played by the accused towards the commission of offence, his sentence was enhanced from ten years' R.I. to imprisonment for life, with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.---With…
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