Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 441 2019 SLD 441 2019 PCRLJ 247
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. (T) 43 of 2017, decision Dated 25-04-2018. hearing Dated: 14-03-2018.
ABDULLAH BALOCH, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Zahoor Ahmed Baloch
Respondent(s) by: Sudheer Ahmed and Muhammad Yahya Baloch, D.P.G.

HALEEM

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302(b)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Eye-witness had correctly stated the date, time, the place of occurrence and the manner in which alleged occurrence had taken place---Said witness had correctly identified accused in the court---Other eye-witness of the occurrence, being nephew of the deceased, had fully corroborated the contents of Fard-e-bayan, FIR as well as the statement of other eye-witness---Said witness had attributed the role of firing to accused, while he had mentioned the presence of co-accused and absconding accused---To mention the name of each and every witness in the fard-e-bayan was not necessary---Both the eye-witnesses being the dwellers of the house where the occurrence had taken place, their presence in the house was natural---FIR was lodged promptly without any delay; while the Investigating Officer had recorded the statements of both the eye-witnesses soon after the occurrence; that fact not only ruled out the concept of planting the said witnesses, but also established their presence at the relevant time of occurrence---Testimonies of said witnesses could not be discarded from consideration solely on the ground that their names did not appear in the Fard-e-bayan---Case of prosecution was further strengthened by the recovery of crime weapon/Kalashnikov from the possession of accused---Empties and Kalashnikov were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and it was confirmed that empties were fired from the recovered Kalashnikov---Mere relationship of witnesses with the deceased was no ground to discard their testimony, if their evidence was found entirely independent and truthful---Evidence of said witnesses without looking for any other corroborative evidence, would alone be sufficient to establish the charge---Evidence of related witnesses who were not found inimical and were confidence inspiring, would hardly need any corroboration---Parties were known to each other previously and the question of mistaken identity of the real culprits did not arise---Substitution, was a rare phenomenon---Appraisal of direct and circumstantial evidence coupled with…
🔒
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