Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 1438 2019 SLD 1438 2019 YLR 1368
Federal Shariat Court
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 03/K and Criminal Murder ReferenceNo. 1/K of 2017, decision Dated: 04-02-2019. Hearing Dated:28-01-2019.
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Kazi Wali Muhammad
Respondent(s) by: Khadim Hussain Khooharo, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

GOHAR ALIAS CHAMANVSTHE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 201,302(b)

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 40

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 164,342,544-A

Law: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 10(3)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 201---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 10(3)---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen, offender zina-bil-jabr---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused murdered the daughter of complainant after committing zina-bil-jabr---Prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge, had produced as many as ten witnesses, including complainant, his wife and last seen witnesses of the occurrence---No eye-witness of the incident was available---Entire case of the prosecution revolved around the circumstantial evidence---Record showed that accused had asked to borrow the motorcycle of complainant from his wife---Deceased was sent by her mother to tell the accused that the motorcycle was not available whereafter the little daughter (aged 11 years) of complainant as per her mother was found missing---Mother of the deceased also deposed that when her daughter went missing, she informed her husband/complainant who came home and started search in the neighbourhood---Mother of the deceased during cross-examination had explained that besides hearing the voice of the accused, she had also seen him at the door while standing outside---Testimony of mother of deceased was further strengthened by the deposition of witnesses of last seen, who were independent witnesses, had absolutely nothing common to falsely depose against the accused---Both the said witnesses had corroborated each other on all material points---Said witnesses had put forth, what they knew while making statement on oath that on the day of occurrence, while they were standing at the corner of the street, they had witnessed the deceased in the company of accused, aboard in the yellow and black taxi---Witnesses had also stated in a voice that later, while complainant was searching his daughter, they apprised him about the said factum---Last seen witnesses were cross-examined on various points, but the accused had failed, even slightly to shake their deposition---Said witnesses remained firm and consistent with regard to the timings and…
🔒
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