| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3178 2016 SLD 3178 2016 MLD 1167 |
Sindh High Court
Cr. Jail Appeal No. 104 of 2011, decided on 21st January, 2016. Date of hearing: 11th January, 2016.
CR., JAIL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2011, DECIDED ON 21ST, JANUARY, 2016. DATE OF HEARING11TH, JANUARY, 2016.
A. Rasheed Nizamani for Appellant. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, D.P.G. for the State.
Cr. Jail Appeal No. 104 of 2011, decided on 21st January, 2016. Date of hearing: 11th January, 2016.
CR., JAIL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2011, DECIDED ON 21ST, JANUARY, 2016. DATE OF HEARING11TH, JANUARY, 2016.
A. Rasheed Nizamani for Appellant. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, D.P.G. for the State.
MOHAMMAD HASSAN - --Appellant
VS
The STATE - --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) --------- ----------Ss. 302 (b) --------- Qatl-i-amd --------- Appreciation of evidence --------- Defence pleas not supported by any evidence --------- Mere relationship of prosecution witnesses inter se and with deceased not sufficient to discard their evidence in absence of motive for false implication --------- Accused was alleged to have caused death of uncle of the complainant by inflicting firearm injuries on his body due to previous strained relationship with him --------- Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death as Ta'zir along with payment of compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased --------- Accused had taken plea that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to enmity with the then District Nazim, as he had not voted for him in the general elections, that the deceased had enticed away one lady, due to which her relatives were on inimical terms with him --------- Further plea of accused was that strike call from a political party had been given on the day of incident during which firing had taken place between the police and public and taking advantage of the strike and firing, said relatives might have killed the deceased --------- Eye-witnesses had categorically stated before Trial Court that they had seen the accused while committing murder of the deceased --------- Accused had not produced any material to establish his defence pleas nor any witness had been examined by him to prove his assertion, in absence whereof, bare words of the accused could not be believed --------- Even if the plea regarding enticing a lady was accepted as true, that was not understandable as to why the complainant and the prosecution witnesses, who were admittedly related to the deceased, would spare the real culprits and involve an innocent person --------- Said plea was, therefore, not proved --------- No question had been put to prosecution witnesses regarding the strike or firing on the day of the incident, except the Investigating Officer, who had specifically denied such suggestion --------- Assertion of the accused that after his duty hours he had deposited the official rifle at the police station and same…
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