Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 739 2021 SLD 739 2021 PCRLJ 373
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. (s) 189 of 2018, decided on 29th October, 2019, Date of hearing: 25th September, 2019.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE, ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JUSTICE
Ahsan Rafiq Rana for Appellant. Jamil Akhtar Gajani, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.

MUHAMMAD ALI

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(c),34

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

Section: 40

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(c) 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Un-natural conduct---Motive, not proved---Chance witnesses--- Contradictory statements--- Dishonest improvements---Scope---Accused was alleged to have murdered the deceased within the presence of his relatives---Firing had continued for 5-10 minutes but no bullet had hit the eye-witnesses---Complainant had failed to substantiate the motive through confidence inspiring evidence---Eye-witnesses were residents of another district but they had failed to explain the reason of their presence on the scene of occurrence---Eye-witnesses had made dishonest improvements in their statements by narrating the facts which were in exclusive knowledge of the complainant---Statements of eye-witnesses were contradictory to each other regarding the time of the arrival of the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence---Investigating Officer had stated that the mouth of deceased was open whereas the eye-witnesses had narrated otherwise---Conduct of the eye-witnesses was un-natural and did not appeal to a prudent mind---Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances. Dohlu v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 690; Muhammad Farooq v. The State 2006 SCMR 1707 and Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2019 SCMR 1068 ref. Atta Muhammad v. The State 1999 SCMR 594 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Motive---Scope---Conviction can be awarded in a case where no motive is alleged but once motive is alleged by the complainant, it must be proved and in case of failure, the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. Qudrat Sher v Mst. Mumtaz 2016 YLR 787 ref. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---How much of information received from accused may be proved---Recovery of weapon---Open place---Sending of empties along with crime weapon to Forensic Laboratory---Delay in sending recovered articles to Forensic Laboratory---Scope---Accused was alleged to have got recovered the crime weapon---Place of recovery was not in exclusive possession…
🔒
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