| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1075 2018 SLD 1075 2018 PCRLJ 617 |
Cr.A. No. 285 and Murder Reference No. 13 of 2014, decision Dated: 12-09-2017, hearing Date : 28-08-2017.
Muhammad Akram Shah for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2014). Ameer Hamza Mengal, Deputy Prosecutor-General (DPG) for the State (in Cr.A. No. 285 of 2014). Ameer Hamza Mengal, Deputy Prosecutor-General (DPG) for Petitioner (in Murder Reference No. 13 of 2014). Muhammad Akram Shah for the State (in Murder Reference No.13 of 2014).
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Witness, statement of--- Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses being minor in nature were not sufficient to make the case of prosecution doubtful. 2009 SCMR 471 and 2013 PCr.LJ 692 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account corroborated by medical evidence---Complainant (deceased) then alive, registered the case wherein he had alleged that accused visited him for his treatment of piles---Deceased demanded money so as to purchase raw material to prepare medicines---Next morning, deceased was confronted by the accused for demanding money for medicines and made firing at him, which caused serious injuries to deceased---Sons of deceased came out from their house and saw the accused with pistol---Deceased told the story of assault by the accused to his sons---Deceased was shifted to hospital where he succumbed to injuries---Ocular account was furnished by the sons of deceased---Ocular account including the statements of sons of deceased and the contents of fard-e-bayan were in line with the medical and recovery of empty, blood stained articles and other evidence available on record---Prosecution witnesses were cross-examined at length, but nothing could be unearthed showing that they had involved the accused falsely on the basis of previous enmity or personal grudge or at the instance of someone else---No reason was available to discard the evidence produced by the prosecution---Ocular account furnished by the sons of deceased could not be discarded for being relatives of the deceased---Case was not result of sudden provocation but a preplanned and premeditated murder, thus no mitigating circumstances for lesser punishment were available---Circumstances established that Judgment passed by Trial Court, in circumstances did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or misreading and non-reading of evidence---Appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed in circumstances. 2000 SCMR 163 and 1994 SCMR 1 rel. (c) Criminal trial--- ----"Motive" and "intent"---Distinction and scope---Motive is the state of mindβ¦
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