Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1787 2019 SLD 1787 2019 YLR 1829
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. S-100 of 2011, decision Dated: 25-05-2018. Dates of hearing: 4th and 7th May, 2018.
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Asif Ali Abdul Razzaque Soomro
Respondent(s) by: Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G.

UBEDULLAH AND 2 OTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 149,302

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2),342,382B

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused party armed with weapons assaulted on complainant party, made firing upon the brother of complainant on the pretext of 'karap' with wife of accused---Accused party, thereafter killed the wife of accused---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by three witnesses including complainant---Record showed that one day prior to the incident, the complainant party purchased paddy seedling from the accused party---On the day of incident, at about 4.00 a.m., complainant party went for plucking the paddy seedling from the land of the accused which was at distance of fifty paces away from their houses---Complainant party, after plucking the paddy seedling, were returning back and when reached near the house of co-accused, where all the accused allegedly emerged from their houses and killed the deceased after declaring him 'karo'---Deceased was not blamed as 'karo' before the incident and if the accused persons had any intention to kill the deceased, then there was no reason for them to wait for him till 8.00 a.m., when deceased was already within their sight---Complainant contended that accused persons fired from their respective guns from distance of twenty paces, which hit deceased on his back and other parts of his body resulting his death---No witness had received a single pellet injury when the fires were made from the guns from such a distance, the pellet would usually spread, which was incredible---Complainant had deposed that the accused persons after committing murder of deceased went towards their houses with intention to kill the wife of accused, who were followed by the complainant where he found the dead body of deceased lady---Circumstances suggested that complainant party could not witness the second part of the incident (murder of deceased lady) that in what manner she was murdered by the accused party, when deceased being blamed as 'karo' was done to death then despite extreme fury against the accused party then how the complainant party had access to go inside their house…
🔒
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