| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1446 2018 SLD 1446 2018 YLR 1071 |
Jail Cr. A. No. 39-Q and Murder Reference No. 2-Q of 2001, decision Dated: 07-02-2018.
2018, DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE
Nemo for Appellant. Mehr Sardar Ahmed Abid for the State (in Murder Reference No. 2-Q of 2001). Syed Abdul Baqir Shah, Additional Prosecutor-General, Balochistan for the State.
WAZIR MUHAMMAD ALIAS LAL MUHAMMAD
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 376---Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, R.25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 396---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Dacoity with murder---Haraabah---Award of death sentence---Reference to High Court---Trial Court recorded conviction of accused, sentenced him to death and submitted reference to High Court for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence---Rule 25 of the Federal Shariat Court (Procedure) Rules, 1981, provided that reference submitted to High Court by lower court, would be heard as an appeal and the provisions contained in Chapter III of the said Rules, would mutatis mutandis, apply---High Court under provisions of S.376, Cr.P.C., was competent to make three types of orders, while deciding the reference under S.374, Cr.P.C. could confirm the sentence, or pass any other sentence warranted by law; could annul the conviction and convict accused of any offence of which the Sessions Court might have convicted or order fresh trial on the same or on amended charge; could acquit the accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 396---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)---Dacoity with murder---Haraabah---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was not named in the crime report and case was registered against unknown accused---Ocular account furnished by prosecution witnesses and medical evidence, though proved the unnatural death of the deceased, but that fact by itself would not be sufficient to prove the culpability of accused---Prosecution witnesses, did not highlight the description of accused in their respective statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Omission to disclose descriptions of un-identified accused was significant going to the root of the case, putting a serious dent in the case of prosecution and by itself was sufficient to brush aside the proceedings of identification parade---Witnesses in their evidence, failed to describe role of accused in the occurrence---Statements of the prosecution witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C., were recorded on the next day of the occurrence---Prosecution…
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