| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 742 2014 SLD 742 2014 YLR 1612 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-94 of 2007, decided on 04-10-2013. Date of hearing: 06-09-2013.
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, JUSTICE
Nisar Ahmed G. Abro for Appellant. Qazi Muhammad Bux for the State.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-94 of 2007, decided on 04-10-2013. Date of hearing: 06-09-2013.
ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, JUSTICE
Nisar Ahmed G. Abro for Appellant. Qazi Muhammad Bux for the State.
SABIR ALI BHUTTO
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Name of accused, the role he played, weapon used for the commission of the offence, origin of fight, manner of the occurrence and the names of eye-witnesses, were mentioned in promptly lodged F.I.R.---Accused was arrested along with G-III rifle allegedly used in the commission of the offence---Complainant and one eye-witness were real brothers of the deceased while other witness was their cousin, but mere relationship, would not hold a witness interested---Complainant and both the eye-witnesses had highlighted the details of the incident---Defence had not offered any serious objection to the hotel of the deceased being the place of occurrence---All the three eye-witnesses were subjected to an exhaustive cross-examination, but despite various searching questions nothing advantageous could be extracted---No enmity was alleged against the complainant and eye-witnesses; they being real brothers, question of substitution of real culprit with that of accused, who was their cousin and "humzulf", of the deceased, did not arise, which otherwise was a rare phenomenon---Ocular account was fully corroborated by medical evidence---No conflict was noticed between ocular and medical evidence, which was corroborative on date, time of the incident and set of the injuries---Report of Ballistic Expert, had clearly indicated that three crime empties recovered from the place of incident had been fired from G-III rifle recovered from accused---Recovery of weapon and empties had fully supported the prosecution case, in circumstances---Failure of the prosecution to prove the motive was not fatal to the prosecution case---Accused had not come to the hotel/place of occurrence with intention to commit the murder, but on demand of charges for tea, he being a constable, feeling insulted, and all of a sudden went to the extreme level of firing, committing murder of deceased---Trial Court, in circumstances, was justified in awarding lesser punishment of imprisonment to accused---Impugned of the Trial Court, was neither perverse nor arbitrary, nor it suffered from any illegality or irregularity, but was quite…
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