Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2585 2021 SLD 2585 2021 PCRLJ 1654
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. S-91 of 2016, decided on 6th March, 2020, Date of hearing: 6th February, 2020.
ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JUSTICE
Safdar Ali G. Bhutto for Appellants. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Saleem Raza Jakhar for the Complainant.

MANIK ALIAS MOHAMMAD ALI AND ANOTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 154

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,337-H(2),148,149

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

Section: 129(g)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---First Information Report---Object and scope---First Information Report in a criminal case is an extremely imperative piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial---Object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye-witnesses present at the crime scene---Delay in lodging the FIR quite often results in adornment with mala fide lodging intention---On account of delay, the FIR not only deprived of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation, adversely affecting the case of the prosecution. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2), 148 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular and medical evidence---Contradictions---Effect---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one cousin of complainant died while other was injured---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that accused party damaged the paddy crop of complainant party on which the parties exchanged hot words---Ocular testimony consisted of two witnesses, complainant and a witness---Both the said witnesses were cousins of the deceased---Witnesses had reiterated the contents of the FIR, however, deposed in cross-examination that the deceased received firearm injuries at the distance of 9/10 paces and injured received fire from 5 to 6 paces and witnesses were at the distance of 10/15 paces from the accused---Witnesses had further deposed that the incident continued for 5 to 10 minutes---Medical Officer had contradicted the said witnesses by stating that the deceased received firearm injuries at the distance of 35 feet---Circumstances established that the prosecution…
🔒
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