| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1431 2023 SCMR 1278 2023 SLD 1431 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2020, decided on 6th June, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Murder Reference No. 201 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2013)Date of hearing: 6th June, 2023.
JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---This Civil Petition for leave to appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the learned Balochistan High Court, Quetta in C.P. No.112/2014 whereby the Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner w
Sagheer Ahmed Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Irfan Zia, D.P.G. for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 446 of 2020, decided on 6th June, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Murder Reference No. 201 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2013)Date of hearing: 6th June, 2023.
JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---This Civil Petition for leave to appeal is directed against the Order dated 29.03.2016 passed by the learned Balochistan High Court, Quetta in C.P. No.112/2014 whereby the Constitution Petition filed by the petitioner w
Sagheer Ahmed Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Irfan Zia, D.P.G. for the State. Nemo for the Complainant.
ABDUL WAHID---Appellant
VS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Crime report was lodged one hour and fifty five minutes after the incident---Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was firstly taken to hospital, which was situated at a distance of more than five kilometers from the place of occurrence where he succumbed to the injuries and the matter was reported from the hospital, it would be considered a promptly lodged FIR---Promptness of FIR prima facie showed truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excluded possibility of deliberation and consultation---Accused was known to the deceased and another witness, as such, there was no chance of misidentification---Witnesses of ocular account had reasonably explained their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Said witnesses had given all necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence---Witnesses had no enmity or ill-will against the accused to falsely involve him in the case---Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the persons of the deceased was concerned---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Witnesses related to the deceased---Testimony, reliance on---Scope---If the presence of the related witnesses at the time of occurrence is natural and their evidence is straightforward and confidence inspiring then the same can be safely relied upon to sustain conviction of an accused. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Ocular account---Medical evidence---Preference---Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused. Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1996 SCMR 908; Naeem Akhtar v. The State PLD 2003 SC 396; Faisal Mehmood v. The State 2010 SCMR 1025 and Muhammad Ilyas v. The State 2011 SCMR 460 ref. (d) Criminal trial--- ----Recovery evidence---Medical…
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