Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 3235 2022 SLD 3235 2022 PCRLJ 1480
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 2019, decision Dated: 13th July,2020. Date of hearing: 7th July, 2020.
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL AND ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, JJ
Barrister Amir Muhammad Lehri for Appellants. Muhammad Younas Mengal, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Muhammad Ibrahim Lehri for the Complainant.

ALI AHMED and others

VS

The STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,337-A(i),337-A(ii),147,149

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 154

(a) Criminal trial--- ----Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence did not identify the accused---Medical evidence confirmed injuries on the person of deceased/injured, and locale/seat of injuries and weapon used---Medical evidence was not substantive piece of evidence rather supportive and corroborative evidence---Medical evidence would not connect the accused with the commission of crime. Sarfraz alias Sappi v. The State 2000 SCMR 1785 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 147 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, shajjah-i-mudihah, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused persons along with absconding accused assaulted the complainant party with hard object, due to which four persons sustained injuries, while two succumbed to the injuries---Record showed that eye-witnesses straight forwardly stated that all the accused persons being members of unlawful assembly assaulted the complainant party---Said witnesses deposed all the relevant facts---Defence objected that all the witnesses were related to each other and with deceased---Despite availability of independent persons from the locality the prosecution had not recorded their statements---Mere relationship was no ground to discard the statements of natural and truthful witnesses---No bar in the law existed to the effect that the statements of related witnesses would not be considered---Defence had failed to point out any enmity of the witnesses with the accused---Even no such suggestion was put to the witnesses---Presence of ocular witnesses at the place of occurrence was probable---Even some time the related witnesses might be found more reliable---Mere relationship would not let the real culprit to go or substitute an innocent person---Presence of accused was not disputed and there was no suggestion that the injuries were self inflicted and the occurrence had not taken place as suggested by the prosecution---Substitution of culprit was rare phenomenon in such cases---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved the charges against the accused persons…
🔒
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