| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 954 2023 SLD 954 2023 YLR 1084 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Appeal No. D-74 of 2019 and Confirmation Case No. 7of 2019, decided on 12th February, 2021. Date of hearing:2nd February, 2021.
Before Nazar Akbar and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Ms. Naila Kausar Shaikh for Appellant. Syed Nadeem-ul-Haq the Complainant. Shawak Rathore, D.P.G. the State.
Criminal Appeal No. D-74 of 2019 and Confirmation Case No. 7of 2019, decided on 12th February, 2021. Date of hearing:2nd February, 2021.
Before Nazar Akbar and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Ms. Naila Kausar Shaikh for Appellant. Syed Nadeem-ul-Haq the Complainant. Shawak Rathore, D.P.G. the State.
MUHAMMAD FAHEEM---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),109,34
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)------Ss. 302(b), 109 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses--- Effect--- Accused was charged that he and two co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by causing dagger blows---Motive behind the occurrence was a quarrel took place between accused and the deceased---Prosecution had produced complainant and another witness as eye-witnesses---Both the witnesses were closely related to the deceased, the complainant was deceaseds cousin and other witness was his nephew---In the present case, the two unknown culprits were shown to be empty handed and accused was allegedly armed with a dagger which he threw away after the commission of offence at the crime scene, thus making him empty handed as well before running away from the place of incident---Two persons and complainant made no effort even to try and catch hold of the culprits, who were empty handed---Accused had run down the same set of stairs they came up from, thus also proving a hindrance in their escape yet the complainant party did not chase the culprits---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case against the accused for the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Sharif and 2 others v. The State 2020 SCMR 1818; Abdul Qayyum v. The State 2020 YLR 1649; Muhammad Imran v. The State 2020 SCMR 857; Muhammad Ilyas v. Ameer Ali 2020 SCMR 305; Hashim Qasim v. The State 2017 SCMR 986; Wajahar Ahmed v. The State 2016 SCMR 2073; Sada Bux v. The State 2016 YLR 463; Irfan Ali v. The State 2015 SCMR 840; Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315; Ali Sher v. The State 2015 SCMR 142; Rahat Ali v. The State 2010 SCMR 584; Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2010 SCMR 385; Noor Muhammad v. The State 2010 SCMR 97; Rahimullah Khan v. Kashif PLD 2008 SC 298; Muhmmad Farooq v. The State 2006 SCMR 1707; Iftikhar Hussain v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185; Abdullah v. The State 1999 SCMR 1034; Mehmood Ahmed v. The State 1995 SCMR 127 and Muhammad Nadeem v. The State 2011 SCMR 872 ref. Muhammad Khan and another v. Theβ¦
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