| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2458 2023 SLD 2458 2023 PLJ 73 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Crl. A. No. 75-L of 2021, decided on 15.11.2022. (Against the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 399-J/2012/BWP and Murder Reference No. 63/2012/BWP)Date of hearing: 15.11.2022
Present: IJAZ UL AHSAN, MUNIB AKHTAR AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ.
Sheikh Sakhawat Ali, ASC for Appellant (Via video link from Lahore). Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG for State. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl, ASC for Complainant.
Crl. A. No. 75-L of 2021, decided on 15.11.2022. (Against the judgment dated 10.05.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 399-J/2012/BWP and Murder Reference No. 63/2012/BWP)Date of hearing: 15.11.2022
Present: IJAZ UL AHSAN, MUNIB AKHTAR AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ.
Sheikh Sakhawat Ali, ASC for Appellant (Via video link from Lahore). Mirza Muhammad Usman, DPG for State. Malik Muhammad Imtiaz Mahl, ASC for Complainant.
AMANULLAH--Appellant
VERSUS
STATE and another--Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)/34
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)/34--Qatl-i-Amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Delay in FIR--Day light occurrence--Ocular account--Medical evidence corroborates ocular version--Post mortem conducted after 10 hours--Recovery--Conviction--Imprisonment of life--Sentence upheld--The matter was reported to the police instantly and the FIR was lodged on the same day just after two hours of the occurrence--The occurrence took place in the broad daylight whereas the parties were known to each other--There is no chance of misidentification--Although both these witnesses were not residents of the locality where the occurrence took place but they have reasonably explained their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time--Ocular account furnished by the prosecution is reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring--The medical evidence available on the record further corroborates the ocular account--Postmortem of the deceased was conducted after a delay of 10 hours is concerned--In a developing country like ours, it cannot be expected that the medical staff along with other facilities is readily available during the odd hours of the night that too in a remote area of southern Punjab, hence, this contention has no legal force--Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence--If there are some minor discrepancies, which do not hamper the salient features of the prosecution case--Motive part of the prosecution story has discarded--Crime empties and the weapon of offence were sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory together, which makes it doubtful--There is sufficient evidence available to sustain the conviction of the appellant--Recovery was disbelieved, the High Court has already taken a lenient view and converted the sentence of death into imprisonment life--Appeal is dismissed. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302(b)/34--Qatl-i-Amd--Delay in post-mortem examination--Postmortem of the deceased was conducted after a delay of 10 hours is concerned--In a developing country like ours, it cannot be expected that the medical staff…
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