| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1062 2018 SLD 1062 2018 PCRLJ 629 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-6, S-16 and S-21 of 2016, decision Dated: 31-05-2017, hearing Date : 23-05-2017.
OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Ghulam Shabbir Dayo for Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 (in Cr.A. No. 6 of 2016). Jamshed Ahmed Faiz for Appellants Nos. 1 to 4 (in Cr.A. No. 16 of 2016). Bakhshan Khan Mahar for Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 (in Cr.A. No. 21 of 2016). Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G. for
Criminal Appeals Nos. S-6, S-16 and S-21 of 2016, decision Dated: 31-05-2017, hearing Date : 23-05-2017.
OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Ghulam Shabbir Dayo for Appellants Nos. 1 to 3 (in Cr.A. No. 6 of 2016). Jamshed Ahmed Faiz for Appellants Nos. 1 to 4 (in Cr.A. No. 16 of 2016). Bakhshan Khan Mahar for Appellants Nos. 1 and 2 (in Cr.A. No. 21 of 2016). Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G. for
SOOMER AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Appreciation of evidence---Common intention---Proof---Prosecution case was that accused-appellants armed with deadly weapons, made firing upon the son and nephew of complainant, due to which both died---Motive behind the occurrence was old enmity between the parties---Record showed that out of nine, one accused had allegedly instigated the other accused, two accused were alleged to have fired at the deceased persons, other accused persons were just present there---No evidence was led in trial to establish common intention of the accused---Circumstances established that common intention of the accused persons for committing the offence was not proved. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused-appellants armed with deadly weapons made firing upon the son and nephew of complainant, due to which son of the complainant died on the spot while his nephew was injured, who died later on---Ocular account was furnished by two witnesses including complainant---Statements of said witnesses were contradicted with each other---If the version of complainant was to be believed, that would negate the version of other witness of ocular account---If the version of eye-witness was to be believed that would mean that the complainant was dishonest---In either case, the casualty was the credibility of both the witnesses---Prosecution witnesses deposed that no medical treatment was provided to the injured at the District Hospital and injured was referred to another hospital and the Medical Officer of the said hospital deposed that he recovered two pellets from the cranial cavity of the injured---Memo of injuries of the injured and memo of examination of the dead body of deceased did not reveal that the two had sustained fire arm injuries---Prosecution cited two persons as witnesses of seven different memos but examined one in the…
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