| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 631 2021 SLD 631 2021 SCMR 500 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 296 of 2016, decided on 10-09-2020, Date of hearing: 10-09-2020. (Against the judgment Dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Appeal No. 849 of 2014, Cr. PSLA No. 126/2020 with M.R. No. 230 of 2010)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record Nemo for the State.
Jail Petition No. 296 of 2016, decided on 10-09-2020, Date of hearing: 10-09-2020. (Against the judgment Dated 29.03.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Crl. Appeal No. 849 of 2014, Cr. PSLA No. 126/2020 with M.R. No. 230 of 2010)
MUSHIR ALAM, JUSTICE, QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record Nemo for the State.
SHAHEEN IJAZ ALIAS BABU
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Incident allegedly took place in the backdrop of complaints by the deceased over discharge of filthy water from the accuseds shop---Such motive appeared to have ignited the situation, as the past relationship between the parties was peaceful and smooth---Nomination of accused in a broad daylight incident by resident witnesses hardly admitted any space to entertain any hypothesis of mistaken identity or substitution---Prompt recourse to law straight at the police station excluded every possibility of deliberation or consultation---Accuseds sole nomination as being the one to have targeted the deceased with five entrance wounds was a circumstance that reflected positively on complainants conduct---Three co-accused persons, who were sons of the accused, were assigned inconsequential roles during the incident, thus, they were acquitted seemingly out of abundant caution---Presence of accuseds sons in an incident, that took place in the same neighborhood, would not by itself bring them into the community of intention and as such their acquittal could not be viewed as a circumstance casting away the entire case---Acquittal of co-accused persons did not adversely impact the prosecutions mainstay qua the role of repeated fire shots assigned to the accused--- Forensic report of the weapon confirmed the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased---Conviction and sentence of accused as modified by the High Court was maintained---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Plea that an accidental fire shot by the deceased himself during the brawl took his life---Validity---Accused had admitted his presence at the place of incident---Straight forward and consistent ocular account furnished by the witnesses out weighed accuseds plea of an accidental fire by the deceased---Such plea also merited outright rejection in view of repeated fire shots widely covering different parts of deceaseds body---Conviction and sentence of accused as modified by the High Court was…
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