| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 721 2015 SLD 721 2015 YLR 805 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 2830 and Capital Sentence Reference No.75-T of 2010, heard on 11th February, 2014
SHAHID HAMEED DAR AND MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, JJ
Shahid Shabbir for Appellant. Nemo for the Complainant. Khurram Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 2830 and Capital Sentence Reference No.75-T of 2010, heard on 11th February, 2014
SHAHID HAMEED DAR AND MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, JJ
Shahid Shabbir for Appellant. Nemo for the Complainant. Khurram Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State
DILAWAR MEHMOOD alias DULLIvsThe STATE and another
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 382B
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7,21(L)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 21(L)---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---FIR was promptly lodged which had excluded every doubt that the complainant had deliberated or consulted anybody before the registration of the case---Parties being known to each other before the incident, question of mistaken identity of accused persons, did not arise---Nothing had been deposed as to motive of the case---Ocular account, had been found hinging upon the statements of the complainant, the real brother of the deceased and other prosecution witness, not related to the complainant party, whereas other eye-witness, was renounced as being unnecessary by the prosecution---Defence failed to create any dent, or to uproot the presence of the prosecution witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Accused and absconding co-accused, both held Kalashnikov at the relevant time, while riding a bike and mounted murderous assault, resulting in causing injuries to death of the deceased at the spot---Both after raising Lalkaras, had started firing on the deceased resulted in his death---Medical evidence also corroborated the ocular account---Prolonged, unexplained abscondence of accused, had been proved on the record, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Kalashnikov, was not sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory to ascertain about its present condition as to workability or otherwise---No crime empty was taken into possession from the spot, but was recovered after a period of about 2-1/2 years of the occurrence---Prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt against accused, but quantum of sentence could be reduced, for the reason, that; prosecution had not been able to pinpoint any particular injury caused by accused which had caused the death of the deceased---Quantum of sentences imposed upon accused, was commuted to imprisonment for life from death sentence---All other sentences awarded to accused would remain enforced and would run concurrently with benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. Nasir and others v. The State 1998 MLD 2021 ref. JUDGMENT…