Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),337-A(iii),337-F(ii),34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 337-A(iii), 337-F(ii) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-hashimah, ghayr-jaifah, badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Injured witness---Scope---Accused, along with co-accused persons, was alleged to have injured the witness and murdered another---Eye-witness had fully supported the case of prosecution---Eye-witness was not related to the complainant and was resident of the same vicinity, therefore, he was a natural and independent eye-witness---Injured eye-witness had also supported the prosecution case and since he had sustained injuries, therefore, his presence on the spot was established---Mode and manner of occurrence narrated by the prosecution witnesses, whereby the absconding co-accused had inflicted dagger blows on the deceased and the accused had attacked the injured eye-witness, clearly showed that the accused persons duly armed with weapons had come to the spot in a pre-planned manner and as such shared common intention---Prosecution had established its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Judgment and conviction recorded by Trial Court was maintained and appeal was dismissed. Abdul Rauf and others v. Mehdi Hassan and others 2006 SCMR 1106; Muhammad Waris v. The State 2008 SCMR 784; Muhammad Riaz alias Riasti and another v. The State 1987 SCMR 177; Gheba and others v. The Crown PLD 1949 Lah. 453 and Muhammad Akbar and 2 others v. The State PLD 1991 SC 923 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860), S. 154---Qatl-i-amd---Information in cognizable cases---Non-mentioning of the name of eye-witness in FIR---Effect---Accused, charged for committing qatl-i-amd and causing injuries, objected that since name of the eye-witness was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, his presence on the spot could not be believed---Held; such omission did not render the entire prosecution case doubtful for the reason that the complainant had conceded that he was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, he had only set the prosecution case in motion. Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State PLD 2001 SC 107 and Muhammad Basharat v. The State 2003 SCMR 554 rel. JUDGMENT…

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