Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 2761 2018 SLD 2761 2018 PCRLJ 143

Criminal Appeals Nos. 55, 56 of 2016 and Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2016, decision Dated: 20-03-2017. hearing Dated: 13-03-2017.
MUHAMMAD ALAM, JUSTICE MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Jehanzeb Khan (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 55 and 56 of 2016). Amjad Hussain (in Criminal Revision No. 19 of 2016).
Respondent(s) by: Dy. A.G. (in all cases). Amjad Hussain (in Criminal Appeals Nos.55 and 56 of 2016). Jehanzeb Khan (in Cri

NASIR IQBAL AND OTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302(b)

Law: Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)

Section: 13

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, enhancement of---Complainant, having not nominated anyone in the FIR for the murder of his son, no malice or ill-will could be attributed to the complainant for false implication of accused---Complainant left the matter to the Investigating Agencies to trace out the real culprit---Accused after commission of murder voluntarily surrendered himself---Prosecution witness in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer categorically charged accused as sole perpetrator of the crime---Identification parade conducted by Magistrate, II Class, was defective, as Magistrate II Class was not competent to supervise identification parade---Identification parade even if excluded, would not damage the case of prosecution---Weapon of offence, recovered from accused and crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence, were certified to have been fired from pistol---Contention of defence counsel that conviction could not be based on the statement of a single witness, was devoid of any legal substance---Conviction on a capital charge was always possible on the statement of single witness, provided the evidence of a solitary witness was confidence inspiring and his presence was established at the spot---Quality of evidence which would matter and not the quantity was required in criminal cases---No ill-will or malice was attributed to the prosecution witness and his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence had not seriously been challenged by the defence---Place and time of occurrence had not been challenged by the defence---Weapon of offence had been found wedded with the crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence---In absence of any enmity, no corroboration was required which was a rule of prudence and not of the jurisprudence and accused could be convicted, if the court was satisfied that it was the accused, who committed the murder---Prosecution had been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond any shadow of doubt---While awarding sentence of life…
🔒
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