Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 330 2024 SLD 330 2024 MLD 327
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Appeal No. S-154 of 2015, decision dated: 5th December, 2022.Date of hearing: 29th November, 2022.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, J
Altaf Shahid Abro for Appellant. Mufeed Ahmed Narejo for the Complainant. Nazar Muhammad Memon, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State.

SHAFQUAT HUSSAIN---Appellant

VS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,147,148,149,114

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common object, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly and abettor present when offence committed---Appreciation of evidence---Record showed that complainant, in the FIR, had stated that on instigation of a co-accused, appellant/accused and another co-accused (already acquitted) had made straight fires upon them from their respective Kalashnikovs and one bullet fired by appellant had hit his brother (deceased) on his chest, whereas in his evidence he had not taken name of said co-accused (who instigated) for making firing upon deceased and had stated that it was appellant who made a direct fire from his Kalashnikov upon deceased with intention to commit his murder---Further, in the FIR the complainant had stated that as soon as they reached the spot they saw the accused standing duly armed with weapons, while in his evidence, he had stated that accused had come to spot riding on two motorcycles; his assertion had been contradicted by another prosecution witness (an eye-witness), who had stated that the accused came in front of them by foot---Said prosecution witness had stated that on instigation of co-accused all accused started firing on them and then appellant also started doing so and his fire hit the deceased on his chest which was different to what complainant had said, in his cross-examination---Complainant stated that accused were standing at a distance of 15 meters (almost 45 feet) from them and conjointly fired at complainant party, members of which, from narration in FIR, appeared to be standing together in close proximity, but strangely, it was only the deceased who received a single bullet injury, and none of the prosecution witnesses sustained a scratch from alleged heavy firing made by accused---Prosecution, because of existence of doubt, had not succeeded in proving the case against the appellant---Appeal filed by the accused was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common object, rioting armed with deadly…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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