Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1591 2021 SLD 1591 2021 YLR 1594
Sindh High Court
Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-459 of 2010 and Confirmation Case No. D-24 of 2010, decided on 2nd July, 2020, Date of hearing: 23rd June, 2020.
MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE, RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO, JUSTICE
Syed Tarique Ahmed Shah for Appellant. Ms. Rameshan Oad, A.P.G. Sindh for the State. Ms. Ramesham Oad, A.P.G. for the Complainant with Complainant n person.

MUHAMMAD ADNAN

VS

THE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,459,201,34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 459, 201 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal trespass, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about six hours and forty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of son of the complainant and injuring two other persons by inflicting hammer blows---Record showed that incident took place at 5:30 a.m.---Record showed that matter was reported at police check post promptly which was closed and thereafter the complainant had to arrange the transportation of the dead body and injured to hospital and thereafter he lodged the FIR, therefore, delay in lodging the FIR could not be considered to be fatal to the prosecution case. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 459, 201 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, criminal trespass, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of son of the complainant and injured two other persons by inflicting hammer blows---Admittedly, there was no eyewitness to the murders---Complainant produced last seen evidence and stated that on the day of incident he and his cousin went to the house of deceased to inform him about a sugar cane trolly being ready---Complainant had seen accused coming out of the house of deceased with a hammer in his hand who ran away after he gave him a warning---Complainant then went inside the house and found the dead bodies and injured---Circumstances suggested that complainant was chance witness and had no reason to be present at 5:30 a.m. at the house of deceased, thus, his evidence was doubtful---Further, doubt was casted on the evidence of complainant by the fact that it was 5.30 a.m. in the morning and it was dark and not daylight and there was no source of light so how was it possible for him to recognize accused from a long distance via a fleeting glance when he only knew him as a person from the local community---Complainant was also related to the deceased and was an interested witness who according to his own FIR had…
🔒
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