Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1681 2019 SLD 1681 2019 MLD 1390
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 365 and Murder Reference No. 50 of 2013/BWP, heard on 18-09-2018.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE CH. ABDUL AZIZ, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Rana Rizwan Ahmed
Respondent(s) by: Asghar Ali Gill, Deputy Prosecutor General

SHAMEER AHMAD

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 109,302,302(b)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,340(2),374,382B,544A

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Promptly lodged FIR---Occurrence took place on 11.07.2009 at about Maghrab prayer in an area situated at a distance of about 2-kilometers from Police Station---Occurrence was reported by complainant to the police official who arrived at the crime scene at about 08:45 p.m.---Record showed that the defence had not brought forward any material which might have casted even an iota of doubt regarding the claim of prosecution about the case having been registered at the time mentioned in the crime report---Such prompt reporting went long way in excluding the hypotheses of false implication, fabrication of facts etc.---Promptitude in lodging FIR was a step forward in establishing the presence of complainant and the witnesses on the spot at the time of occurrence. Muhammad Raza alias Gulai v. The State 1997 SCMR 1420 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused was charged for committing murder of son of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that the wife of accused after getting divorce from him contracted marriage with the deceased, whereupon accused and his brothers developed grudge and committed the offence---Prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused and co-accused produced ten witnesses including two as eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Record showed that the narrators of ocular account were none other than the inmates of the house, where the occurrence took place---Nothing was brought on record by defence that the witnesses were not residents of the same house---Complainant and eyewitness were the most natural witnesses of the occurrence---Ocular account showed that accused was overpowered and nabbed by the witnesses immediately after the incident at the crime scene---Accused was also disarmed by the witnesses and the weapon of offence was snatched from him---Such stance of the eye-witnesses stood corroborated from the investigation---Such factor provided strength to the case of prosecution and proved the presence of…
🔒
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