Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 951 2023 SLD 951 2023 YLR 1054
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 1450-P of 2019, decided on 27th January,2022. Date of hearing: 27th January, 2022.
Before Rooh ul Amin Khan and Syed Arshad Ali Shah, JJ
Altaf Khan and Muhammad Fahim for Appellants. Muhammad Nisar, A.A.G. for the State. Syed Mubashir Shah for
Respondent No.2

SHAHID MURAD and another---Appellants

VERSUS

The STATE and 2 others---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 34,302,324,337F(v),449

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----Ss. 302, 324, 449 337-F(v)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, ghayr-jaifah-hashimah--- Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of the complainant party and injuring one person by firing, complainant party made firing in defence, due to which one person of the accused party was hit and died---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and injured---Complainant reiterated the whole story of the case as mentioned in the FIR---Said witness had been subjected to lengthy and taxing cross-examination through skilful hand, but nothing favourable to defence could be extracted from his mouth while answering the questions of defence---Complainant remained stuck to his stance taken in the FIR and site plan---Complainant correctly pointed out the places of the deceased, injured and the accused at the time of occurrence---Record showed that the occurrence had taken place inside the house of the complainant at 08:00 p.m. but in the recent days marriage of injured had taken place in the house and the prosecution had brought ample evidence on file about availability of plenty of light lit in the house at the time of occurrence, therefore, identification of accused was quite possible, particularly, when they were previously known to the complainant party---Nothing was extracted from the mouth of the complainant to the effect that on the day and time of occurrence he was not present in the house and was present somewhere else---As per statement of complainant, he was 62 years old; therefore, his presence in his house at the time of incident was quite natural and was appealable to a prudent mind---Another eye-witness aged 24/25 years, who had stamp of injuries on her person appeared and remained stuck to her initial stance and corroborated the testimony of complainant on each and every aspect of the occurrence i.e. the day, time and place of occurrence as well as the mode and manner in which the occurrence took place---Injured witness had also furnished true account of the events…
🔒
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