| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1372 2018 SLD 1372 2018 SCMR 1001 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr. A. No. 466 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 28-02-2018. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Murder Reference No. 305/2010 and Cr. A. No. 253-J of 2010)
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional P.G. for the State. Muhammad Siddiq Khan Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Cr. A. No. 466 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 28-02-2018. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 19.03.2014 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Murder Reference No. 305/2010 and Cr. A. No. 253-J of 2010)
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, JUSTICE, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Ms. Aisha Tasneem, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Waheed, Additional P.G. for the State. Muhammad Siddiq Khan Baloch, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
MUHAMMAD SALEEM
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused was a friend of the deceased having his residence in the same neighborhood and was known to the entire family of the deceased---On the night of the incident accused was not found at his residence, when he ought to have been sleeping considering that the police was informed of the incident at 3:20 a.m.---Accused remained an absconder for nine days---Complainant and prosecution witnesses were residents of the same locality, whereas one of the witnesses resided in the house with the deceased where the murder took place---None of the witnesses, thus, could be said to be chance witnesses---Prosecution witnesses and the injured witness, who received dagger blows during the occurrence, had no reason to falsely implicate the accused---Doctor who conducted postmortem of the deceased and the doctor who examined the injured witness had both in their respective reports given the approximate time of injuries, which coincided with the time reported by the prosecution witnesses---Evidence that had come on the record was sufficient to lead to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed murder of deceased---High Court had rightly upheld the conviction of accused under Ss. 302 & 324, P.P.C.---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Weapon of offence---Inconsistency in evidence of witnesses---Accused contended that initially it was reported in the FIR that he had a knife in his hand which in evidence turned out to be a dagger; held, that such inconsistency on its own strength could not be regarded sufficient enough to discard the unshaken ocular account of the incident---Medical evidence showed fourteen incised wounds on the body of the deceased inflicted by a sharp edged weapon, which could either be caused by a heavy knife or a dagger---Question as to whether it was a knife or a knife type of dagger, the same was a minor discrepancy without having any effect on the type of injuries sustained by the deceased---Appeal against…
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