| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1326 2017 SLD 1326 2017 SCMR 1662 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 110-L of 2009, decision & heard on: 25-05-2017 (On appeal against the judgment Dated 13.01.2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Appeal No. 368 of 2003 and M.R. No. 232 of 2003)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Azam Nazeer Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 110-L of 2009, decision & heard on: 25-05-2017 (On appeal against the judgment Dated 13.01.2009 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Appeal No. 368 of 2003 and M.R. No. 232 of 2003)
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, JUSTICE, SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JUSTICE
Azam Nazeer Tarrar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, Advocate Supreme Court and Mrs. Tasneem Amin, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional P.G. for the State.
ZAHOOR AHMAD
VS
THE STATE
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Matter was reported to the police within one hour of the occurrence, thus, there was hardly any chance of consultation and deliberation in the intervening period---Postmortem of body of deceased was conducted on the same day just seven hours after the occurrence---Name of the accused was mentioned in the FIR and he was assigned the specific role of firing at the deceased---Complainant and another eye-witness provided the ocular account and they gave specific reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence as, according to them, they along with the deceased were proceeding to harvest some crop---Although the complainant and eye-witness were related to the deceased but they had no previous enmity or ill-will against the accused and they could not be termed as interested witnesses in the absence of any previous enmity---Both witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point---Minor discrepancies in their statements were not helpful to the defence because with the passage of time such discrepancies were bound to occur---Occurrence took place in broad daylight and both the parties knew each other so there was no probablity of mistaken identity and in the absence of any previous enmity there could be no substitution by letting off the real culprit especially when the accused alone was responsible for the murder of the deceased---Medical evidence fully supported the ocular account as far as injuries received by the deceased, lapse of time between the injury and death and between death and postmortem---Both the courts below had rightly convicted the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C.---Appeal was partly allowed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life---Mitigating circumstances---Failure to prove motive was not fatal to the prosecution case, although it was one of the mitigating factors (to reduce quantum of sentence awarded to accused). (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence,…
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