Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 515 2017 SLD 515 2017 PCRLJ 327
Sindh High Court
Cr. Jail. Appeal. No. S-68 of 2010, decided on 8th January, 2016, Date of hearing: 27th October, 2015.
SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JUSTICE
Habibullah Ghouri for Appellants. Khadim Hussain Khoohoro, A.P.G. for the State.

QAISER AND 2 OTHERS --AppellantS

VS

THE STATE--Respondent

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Proof---Principle---Establishing death to be unnatural is never sufficient to convict accused sent up to face trial---Prosecution continues under same bounden obligation and duty to establish beyond shadow of doubt that it was or were, as the case may, accused who caused unnatural death. Abdul Majeed v. The State 2011 SCMR 941 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Conviction---Principle---Conviction cannot sustain where direct evidence (ocular evidence) fails. 2007 SCMR 1535 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Witness---Dishonest---Scope---Moment witnesses attempt to improve their statements with an object to bring their testimony in line, it loses credibility and steps into term 'dishonest'. 2007 SCMR 1825 and 2011 SCMR 1517 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Common intention---Proof---Benefit of doubt---Three brothers and their father were alleged to have committed murder but during investigation father of accused persons was declared innocent---Trial Court convicted three accused persons for committing murder and they were sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Complainant (father) and eye-witnesses (real brothers), if were believed to be present at the spot at the relevant time, then it was quite illogical that those blood-relations neither attempted to intervene while their son/brother was being murdered and they even did not touch the dying man lest to know whether he had succumbed to injuries or otherwise---Such attitude was not worth believing rather the same had brought serious cloud over claim of witnesses of ocular account that they were present at relevant time---Element of common intention must have been proved/established which was never proved/established by prosecution through ocular evidence as witnesses of ocular account said nothing except that all accused caused hatchet injuries to deceased---Seating of injuries on the person of deceased also caused doubt towards claim of prosecution that such injuries were caused by all accused with hatchet---Prosecution failed in proving motive nor shaky ocular…
🔒
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