| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2386 2023 SLD 2386 2023 PCRLJ 1741 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 130, Murder Reference No. 4 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 123 of 2020, decided on 10th October, 2022. Date of hearing: 24th August, 2022.
JUDGMENT MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, J.---Appellant Muhammad Raheel son of Abdul Wahab has preferred this Criminal Jail Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge Malir, Karachi/
Kamran Murtaza, Tahir Ali Baloch and Jaffer Awan for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2020). Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Mumtaz Mehfooz, Abdul Kabir Khan, Bakhtiar Khan Sherani and Ms. Aster Mehak for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2020). A
Criminal Appeal No. 130, Murder Reference No. 4 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 123 of 2020, decided on 10th October, 2022. Date of hearing: 24th August, 2022.
JUDGMENT MOHAMMAD KARIM KHAN AGHA, J.---Appellant Muhammad Raheel son of Abdul Wahab has preferred this Criminal Jail Appeal against the impugned judgment dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge Malir, Karachi/
Kamran Murtaza, Tahir Ali Baloch and Jaffer Awan for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2020). Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Mumtaz Mehfooz, Abdul Kabir Khan, Bakhtiar Khan Sherani and Ms. Aster Mehak for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 2020). A
NIAZ MUHAMMAD and others---Appellants
VS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),365,34
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(e)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material on disclosure of accused---Reliance---Accused were charged for abducting the brother of the complainant for ransom and thereafter killing him---Perusal of record revealed that prior to the disclosure of the accused, it was not known to anybody that the abductee had been murdered and his body had been buried in the sewage pit of the farmhouse, which was recovered in 39 pieces in presence of Judicial Magistrate and Lady Police Surgeon---DNA samples taken from 39 pieces of the dead body and buccal swab of parents of deceased matched in the DNA report of Forensic Science Agency---DNA report had proved that the recovered pieces of human meat were of the late abductee and Forensic Science Laboratory Report of bloodstained tuka and knife, cap, and pair of Sandals (identified by a relative) recovered from the buried place of the abductee lent further corroboration---Farmhouse was in possession of co-accused being tenant and such fact had been proved through the statement of owner of farm supported by the revenue record produced by the patwari---Disclosure of the accused was further corroborated by medical evidence i.e. postmortem report, which revealed that the death of the late abductee was caused by firearm injury in the skull---Receiving of the ransom amount and paying debts from the same to the creditors by the complainant stood corroborated by the statements of three creditors and by recovery of Rs.7,00,000/- from the accused---Prosecution had succeeded in proving its case through such circumstantial evidence, therefore, appeal against conviction was dismissed. Fazal Akbar v. State 2013 PCr.LJ 369; Zakir Khan v. State 1995 SCMR 1793; Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146; Muhammad Azad v. State 2019 SCMR 1330; Najiba v. Ahmed Sultan 2001 SCMR 988 and Khurram Ali Khan v. Tayyaba Bibi PLD 2020 SC 146 ref. Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),…
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