| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 2075 2015 SLD 2075 2015 SCMR 993 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2007, decided on 26th March, 2015. (Against the judgment dated 23-1-2006 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2001 and Murder Reference No. 565 of 2001)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JJ
Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2007, decided on 26th March, 2015. (Against the judgment dated 23-1-2006 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2001 and Murder Reference No. 565 of 2001)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JJ
Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State
AHMED
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Death row phenomenon--- Applicability---Unexplained delay in registration of FIR---Circumstantial evidence---Motive, failure to prove---Conviction and death sentence awarded by Trial Court to accused was maintained by High Court---Accused sought reduction in sentence on the plea that he had been in custody since year, 1996---Validity---Occurrence had taken place on 20-11-1996 but FIR was registered with a delay of four days without any plausible explanation for such delay---Prosecution failed to produce any eye-witness of murder in issue and it had squarely relied upon some pieces of circumstantial evidence---All pieces of evidence did not point towards culpability of accused and motive set up by prosecution remained far from being established beyond reasonable doubt---Some prosecution witnesses stated about alleged motive but they admitted before Trial Court in so many words that "they had no personal knowledge about alleged motive or details thereof and all they knew was that there was some ongoing dispute between accused and deceased on the issue of outstanding amount"---Such kind of evidence could not be accepted by any court of law to conclude that motive set up by prosecution was proved by it to the satisfaction of Court---Accused had already spent more than 18 years in jail in connection with the case---If accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life then after availing of requisite remissions he would have served out that sentence by now---Supreme Court maintained the conviction awarded to accused but converted death sentence to imprisonment for life---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Khalid Iqbal v. Mirza Khan and another PLD 2015 SC 50 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 201 & 302---Causing disappearance of evidence and Qatl-i-amd---Conviction---Principle---Conviction for an offence under S. 201, P.P.C. cannot simultaneously be recorded with a conviction for an offence under S. 302, P.P.C. Nasar Khan v. The State 2000 SCMR 130 rel. JUDGMENT ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The allegation against Ahmed appellant was that on 20-11-1996 he and his co-accused…
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