| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1527 2021 SLD 1527 2021 YLR 1145 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeals Nos. 44 and 51 of 2019, decided on 19th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 14th October, 2020. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court Dated 10.10.2019 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 199 and 219 of 2017).
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
PETITIONER(S): ARSHAD ANWAR ADVOCATE Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2019). Barrister Hamayun Nawaz Khan and Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, Advocates for
Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2019). Raja Ayaz
Criminal Appeals Nos. 44 and 51 of 2019, decided on 19th October, 2020, Date of hearing: 14th October, 2020. (On appeal from the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court Dated 10.10.2019 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 199 and 219 of 2017).
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
PETITIONER(S): ARSHAD ANWAR ADVOCATE Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2019). Barrister Hamayun Nawaz Khan and Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, Advocates for
Respondents (in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2019). Raja Ayaz
ARSHAD ANWAR ADVOCATE
VS
STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND 9 OTHErs
Law: Arms Ordinance, 1965
Section: 13
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 324,302,337-F,34,504
(a) Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965)--- ----S. 13---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 302, 337-F, 34 504---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah, common intention, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, possession of unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon---Non-availability of report of Forensic Laboratory---Weapon not in working condition---Mitigating circumstance---Scope---Accused was alleged to have ineffectively fired at the complainant---Recovery of crime weapon was the only evidence which could play vital role in the case of accused to ascertain the true picture---Recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of the accused was made after a considerable delay i.e. on the last day of remand---Recovery witness stated that at the time of recovery, weapon was in working condition whereas Trial Court had noted that the weapon was not in working condition---Weapon recovered on the pointation of accused and the empties recovered from the spot were not even sent to the Forensic Laboratory---Strong mitigation in respect of the recovery, which in view of the role attributed to the accused was of vital importance as well as the active participation of the accused, was available in the case---Sentence of accused was reduced to the one already undergone by him---Appeal of accused was disposed of accordingly and that of complainant was dismissed. Haji and 3 others v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 69; Muhammad Khan and another v. The State 1999 SCMR 1220; Din Muhammad and 9 others v. Ahmad and another 2008 YLR 396; Muhammad Shah v. The State 2010 SCMR 1009; Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State 2013 YLR 110; Shaman alias Shamoo and 3 others v. The State 2013 PCr.LJ 1829; Raja Zamin Abbas and another v. Sultan Mubashar and another 2014 SCR 1678; Kabir Shah v. The State through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another 2016 YLR 1291; Iftikhar Ahmed and another v. The State and another 2016 PCr.LJ 228; Sardar Khan v. The State PLD 2005 Pesh. 166; Muhammad Ashraf and 2 others v. The State 2008 YLR 1808; Shah Nawaz and another v. The State 2008 YLR 2449; Muhammad Ilyas and others v. The State 2011 SCMR 460; Ikramullah v. The…
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