| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 286 2018 SLD 286 2018 SCMR 354 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 16-K of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 6-12-2017. (Against the judgment Dated 11.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2015 and Confirmation Case No. 04 of 2015)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Mrs. Dr. Raana Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 16-K of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 6-12-2017. (Against the judgment Dated 11.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 2015 and Confirmation Case No. 04 of 2015)
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JUSTICE, MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE
Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Mrs. Dr. Raana Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the Complainant. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Additional Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State.
ALI BUX AND OTHERS
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---Reappraisal of evidence---Occurrence in the case had taken place in broad daylight and at a place whereat the same could have been seen by many persons available around the place of occurrence---Information about the said occurrence had been provided to the police on telephone within fifteen minutes of the occurrence---Present accused persons had been nominated in the FIR and specific roles had been attributed to them therein---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished before the trial court by three eye-witnesses who had made consistent statements and had pointed their fingers towards the present accused persons as the main perpetrators of the murder---Said eye-witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons in a case of present nature and the medical evidence had provided sufficient support to the ocular account furnished by them--- Both the courts below had undertaken an exhaustive analysis of the evidence available on the record and had then concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the accused persons having been established to the hilt---Conviction of accused under Ss. 302(b) & 34, P.P.C. was maintained accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Death sentence reduced to imprisonment for life---Mitigating circumstances---Motive unproved---Motive set up by the prosecution was quite weak and it had not even been proved---According to the prosecution about 6/7 years prior to the present occurrence the accused party had suspected that deceased had murdered one of their relatives and despite taking of an oath by deceased on the Holy Quran maintaining his innocence in the matter the accused party did not feel satisfied---During the ensuing 6/7 years no untoward incident had taken place between the parties---Alleged motive was only based upon a suspicion which too stood removed through an oath on the Holy Quran taken by the deceased---No independent evidence was available on the record that the grudge against the deceased still continued…
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