| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2576 2016 SLD 2576 2016 PCRLJ 1524 |
Shariat Court (AJ&K)
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHIEF, JHUTICEAND M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE
Sardar Shamshad Hussain Khan for Appellant No.2 (in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2013). Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for the Complainant/Appellant No.2 (in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2012). Ch. Tariq Alam, Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CHIEF, JHUTICEAND M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, JUSTICE
Sardar Shamshad Hussain Khan for Appellant No.2 (in Criminal Appeal No. 149 of 2013). Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for the Complainant/Appellant No.2 (in Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 2012). Ch. Tariq Alam, Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
MUHAMMAD IDREES AND another--AppellantS
VS
. GHULAM MURTAZA AND another--RespondentS
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-F(ii)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing badiah---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Complainant was not an eye-witness of occurrence; but he had lodged the report on the information furnished to him by another witness who allegedly was injured in the same occurrence---No eye-witness was mentioned in the FIR, but two persons had fully owned the prosecution version---One of said persons, who was allegedly injured in the incident, had not been found as "Adil" witness---Other person, was not mentioned as eye-witness in the FIR but he had been examined as such; and defence had not pointed out that he was not present on the spot, or he had not witnessed the occurrence---Said person was natural witness, as his shop was located in the same bazaar and was open at the time of occurrence---Statements of said two persons, had rightly been believed by the Trial Court for awarding punishment of Tazir---Pistol allegedly recovered from the house of accused, having not been sent to Chemical Examiner for analysis, recovery of said pistol could not be believed and accepted, even as corroboratory evidence---Prosecution had failed to prove the motive---Incident had taken place in daylight in busy bazaar, which was open at the time of occurrence, but except one shopkeeper who was relative of the deceased, no other shopkeeper was examined by the prosecution as eye-witness---Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court was not proper---Shariat Court observed that no doubt, minimum punishment for taking human life, was Qisas but same had to be awarded when "Nisab" as provided by law was completed---Even for awarding the sentence of Tazir, evidence should be convincing and aboveboard---Sentence of life imprisonment, awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was altered to the extent of sentence already undergone by accused---Accused was ordered to be released forthwith. Case law referred. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Appreciation of evidence---Recording of some of the witnesses at belated stage, without there being any plausible explanation, was highly doubtful, which had been ruled out from…
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