| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1352 2019 SLD 1352 2019 YLR 1208 |
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 98-A and Murder Reference No. 3-A of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 16-10-2018.
SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shah Nawaz Asim
Respondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Zubair, AAG, Shad Muhammad Khan
Criminal Appeal No. 98-A and Murder Reference No. 3-A of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 16-10-2018.
SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, JUSTICE SYED ARSHAD ALI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Shah Nawaz Asim
Respondent(s) by: Raja Muhammad Zubair, AAG, Shad Muhammad Khan
MUHAMMAD JAVED
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,302(b),337A(i),404,452
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 340(2),342,374,382B,544A
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 452, 404 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of death, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Accused was charged that he along with his brother and nephew committed the murder of three persons and injured a lady---Motive for the offence was stated to be the pressure of the accused along with other co-accused for a compromise with the deceased---In the present case, two witnesses including complainant had furnished ocular account---Testimony of both the eye-witnesses was consistent, confidence inspiring and trustworthy---Defence had objected that FIR was registered after consultation and deliberation---Peculiar facts and circumstances of the case itself explained the delay---Defence could not succeed to prove any consultation, deliberation and premeditation on the part of the complainant to falsely charge the accused in the case---Accused was residing in the same vicinity and was well known to the complainant and eye-witness---Accused was duly identified in the light of lantern which was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during investigation---Medical evidence also supported the version of the complainant and there was no mentionable contradiction in the statement of the eye-witnesses, who were natural---Both the witnesses had established their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence---Ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses was also corroborated through other circumstantial evidence, i.e. recoveries of blood stained articles and empties---Charge against the accused had been proved beyond any shadow of doubt, however, the motive could not be proved by prosecution through cogent and reliable evidence during trial---Such being mitigating circumstances, death sentence awarded to accused was altered to life imprisonment. Allah Wasaya and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 1797; Ijaz Ahmad v. The State 2017 SCMR 1941; Amanat Ali v. The State 2017 SCMR 1976; Fayyaz alias Faizi v. The State 2017…
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