| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1200 2017 SLD 1200 2017 PLJ 432 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. No. 287 of 2013, Crl. Rev. No. 266 of 2013 and M.R. No. 63 of 2013, decided on 28.10.2016. Date of hearing: 28.10.2016.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
Mian Muhammad Sikandar Hayat, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Rai Zameer-ul-Hassan, Advocate for Complainant.
Crl. A. No. 287 of 2013, Crl. Rev. No. 266 of 2013 and M.R. No. 63 of 2013, decided on 28.10.2016. Date of hearing: 28.10.2016.
SADAQAT ALI KHAN AND SHEHRAM SARWAR CH., JJ.
Mian Muhammad Sikandar Hayat, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Waqas Anwar, Deputy Prosecutor General for State. Rai Zameer-ul-Hassan, Advocate for Complainant.
ZAFAR ALI and others . --Appellants
VS
STATE and others . --Respondents
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860) --.-- --.-- S. 302(b) --.-- Conviction and sentence --.-- Challenge to --.-- Modification in quantum of sentence --.-- Eye-witnesses in their testimonies before trial Court have not only identified appellants but also implicated them with specific role --.-- If testing of a witness qua identity of accused even in Court inspires confidence, witness is consistent on all material particulars and there is nothing in evidence to suggest that he/she is deposing falsely, in such circumstances, his/her testimony cannot be discarded --.-- Eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but they remained consistent on material aspects of case and nothing favourable to defence could be extracted --.-- Motive in present case was to effect that all three appellants along with their co-accused entered house of complainant and during commission of dacoity --.-- Father of complainant was done to death and mother of complainant sustained fire-arm injuries --.-- It is not a case of capital punishment to extent of appellant because of reason that recovery of 44 bore rifle at instance of said appellant has not been proved --.-- Prosecution's failure to prove recovery of rifle at instance of appellant would constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing sentence of death to imprisonment for life --.-- There is a extenuating circumstance, on basis of which appellant could not be made liable to maximum punishment provided u/S. 302(b) read with Section 396 PPC, rather ends of justice would be met, if his death sentence is converted into imprisonment for life --.-- While maintaining conviction u/Ss. 302(b) read with S. 396 PPC, Court alter sentence of appellant from death to imprisonment for life --.-- However, all sentences of three appellants shall run concurrently --.-- Appeal stands dismissed with above modification in quantum of sentence to extent of appellant. 2008 SCMR 1644; 2009 SCMR 1188 & 2007 SCMR 1413 ref. Evidentiary value --.-- It is by now well established proposition of law that if crime empty is sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after arrest of accused or together with crime weapon, positive report of said…
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