Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2976 2018 SLD 2976 2018 PCRLJ 226
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. S-58 and Criminal Jail Appeal No. S-59 of 2012, decision Dated: 19-04-2017. hearing Dated:18-04-2017.
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Aijaz Shaikh
Respondent(s) by: Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, A.P.G.

GOHRAM ZARDARI

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for the murder of uncle of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Record showed that defence had not disputed the time and place of incident, the number and nature of injuries sustained by deceased and his consequent death as described by the Medical Officer---Ocular account of the occurrence was furnished by the daughter of the deceased, who witnessed his murder by the accused whom she recognized through the glow of bulb---Said witness was not a chance witness and her evidence was reliable and confidence inspiring---Statement of the said witness was not damaged at all during cross-examination and had largely been corroborated by complainant, who although was not an eye-witness, but eye-witness had relayed the incident to the complainant---Admittedly, evidence of complainant was hearsay, but it was of some corroborative value as he lodged the FIR and had given similar evidence at trial---Statement of the eye-witnesses was corroborated by the medical report and the evidence of Medical Officer, who carried out the postmortem of the deceased---No other circumstance existed which could be fatal to the prosecution case---Record revealed that two eye-witnesses were present at the place of occurrence---One of the eye-witness was brother of eye-witness daughter of deceased who was only 8/9 years of age at the time of the incident---Prosecution had produced certificate signed by Judicial Magistrate, which showed that brother of eye-witness was a child who could not understand the questions and was not giving rational answers therefore her statement could not be recorded---One witness of young age and other being a female were not in a position to come to rescue the deceased during the deadly assault on him by the accused, who also warned them not to come near and even threatened to kill them if they told anyone about the incident---Presence of adequate light for eye-witness to witness the incident and identify the accused was not in dispute---Chemical report also corroborated the medical and ocular evidence---Circumstances…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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