| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 1179 2020 SLD 1179 2020 MLD 1040 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2017 and Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2017, decided on 11th December, 2019, hearing Date : 5th November, 2019.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE ROZI KHAN BARRECH, JUSTICE
Kamal Kakar, Ilyas Mughal and Abdullah Kurd for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2017). Munir Sikandar and Noor Bakhsh Baloch for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2017). Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") and Wajah
Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2017 and Criminal Revision No. 12 of 2017, decided on 11th December, 2019, hearing Date : 5th November, 2019.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, JUSTICE ROZI KHAN BARRECH, JUSTICE
Kamal Kakar, Ilyas Mughal and Abdullah Kurd for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2017). Munir Sikandar and Noor Bakhsh Baloch for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 75 of 2017). Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") and Wajah
JANAN ALIAS JANAK
VS
THE STATE
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Prompt FIR---Motive, not disclosed---Examination of witnesses by the police on the day of occurrence---Effect---Accused was alleged to have murdered the son of complainant---Eye-witnesses of the occurrence had correctly stated the date, day, time, place and manner in which the occurrence had taken place; had identified the accused in the Trial Court; were independent, natural and truthful; were neither relatives of the deceased nor were they inimical towards the accused; were residents of the same vicinity; were examined under S.161, Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer on the same date and were duly named in the fard-e-bayan which formed basis of the promptly lodged FIR wherein accused was nominated---Medical evidence was in complete harmony with the ocular testimony---Real cause of the occurrence was not disclosed by either of the sides---Appeal was dismissed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Recovery of weapon---Scope---When neither the recovered crime weapon was sent to the Forensic Laboratory nor blood was found on the same nor was it recovered from the exclusive possession of the accused; High Court held that such piece of evidence was of no help to the prosecution's case. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Motive---Scope---Motive is not a necessary component of crime, the weakness or absence of motive is not a factor to be essentially considered for the purpose of acquittal, when otherwise medical, ocular and direct evidence is available on record to prove the charge. Muhammad Saeed and 4 others v. Haq Nawaz Khurram and 3 others PLD 2008 SC 416 ref. Muhammad Latif alias Tifa v. The State 2008 SCMR 1106 rel. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Sentence---Scope---When an offence is proved, it has to be met with the maximum sentence provided therefor, however, no yardstick exists to restrict or curb the discretion of the Trial Court while passing the sentence---Circumstances of each case justify the severity or leniency in passing the sentence. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ROZI KHAN…
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