| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 3086 2022 SLD 3086 2022 YLR 1290 |
Islamabad High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 142 and Criminal Revision No. 71 of2010, decided on 6th October, 2021.
ATHAR MINALLAH, C.J. AND MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui and Imran Feroz for Appellants. Rao Abdur Raheem and Saad Hassan for the respondent/Complainant (in Crl. Appeal No.142/2010 and petitioner in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2010). Muhammad Atif Khokhar for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 142 and Criminal Revision No. 71 of2010, decided on 6th October, 2021.
ATHAR MINALLAH, C.J. AND MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J
Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui and Imran Feroz for Appellants. Rao Abdur Raheem and Saad Hassan for the respondent/Complainant (in Crl. Appeal No.142/2010 and petitioner in Criminal Revision No.71 of 2010). Muhammad Atif Khokhar for the State.
NADEEM QAYYUM and others
VS
The STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),365,201,34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant---First Information Report was lodged on 21.01.2009 at 3.10 p.m. under S.365, P.P.C.---Complainant, in the said FIR had nominated the accused persons and alleged that they had abducted his son for ransom or with the intention to murder him---Witness had lastly seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused persons at 7.00 p.m. on 20.01.2009, however, it was only when the deceased did not come home until it was late night that the complainant started searching for him---Where a person went missing it was usual for his relatives to search for him and such search might take a long time---Police was invariably approached only after all avenues for the search were exhausted---Delay in the lodging of FIR in such cases was not fatal to the case---Circumstances established that the present case did not present special features warranting interference in the convictions of the accused persons---Judicial confession made by the accused persons could not be relied upon, thus, the sentence of accused was reduced from imprisonment for life to the term already undergone/served by them---Appeal was partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 34---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant---Complainant, in his complaint, had expressly mentioned that he had been informed by his brother/witness that at about 06:15 p.m. he had seen the deceased coming out of his house and going along with accused and that he had been informed by his tenant and another person that at about 07:00 p.m.…
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