Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 2442 2020 SLD 2442 2020 YLR 2514
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 84 and Criminal Revision No. 8 of 2019, decided on 28th April, 2020, Date of hearing: 16th April, 2020.
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JUSTICE, ROZI KHAN BARRECH, JUSTICE
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani (absent) for Appellant. Abdul Musawir for the Complainant.

MIR HASSAN

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification available for presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence---Un-natural conduct of eye-witnesses---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of cousin of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by three witnesses including complainant---Medical Officer stated that the injured was brought by the general public---Said witness further confirmed during cross-examination that the deceased was accompanied by twenty persons when he was brought to the hospital---Neither the name of complainant and other eye-witnesses was mentioned in the medical certificate nor Medical Officer stated a single word in his statement that the injured was brought by the complainant or eye-witnesses themselves---High Court observed that if it was presumed that the complainant and eye-witnesses were accompanying the deceased when he was brought to hospital then why the Police Officials did not record/register the complainants report at the hospital promptly but despite that the complainant went to the police station at 1:00 in that two hours after the alleged occurrence---Said aspect of the matter created serious doubt in the prosecution story as to why the report was not lodged promptly---If the eye-witnesses were present at the spot at the time of occurrence, they would have taken the deceased either to hospital or to the police station, which admittedly was not done---Presence of said witnesses on the spot was unnatural because had they been present on the spot they would have received some injuries by the shots fired by the accused and absconding accused---Said fact showed that witnesses tried to suppress their interestedness---All the eye-witnesses stated that they were present at a distance of four to five feet to each other at the time of occurrence---Eye-witnesses stated that the accused persons fired repeated shots (burst firing)---If indiscriminate firing was made by two persons upon six persons from a short distance and the witnesses were standing at a distance…
🔒
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