Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 570 2023 SLD 570 2023 SCMR 596
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2020, decision Dated: 7th December, 2022. (Against the judgment Dated 21.10.2015 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 38-J of 2010, Criminal Revision No. 56 of 2010 and Murder Reference No. 10
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR AND ATHAR MINALLAH, JJ
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Mirza Muhammad Usman, D.P.G. for the State. Muhammad Bashir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.

ALI ASGHAR alias AKSAR

VS

The STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Incident took place at 4.30 p.m. and matter was reported to the police and the FIR was lodged on the same day at 06.15 p.m. i.e. just after one hour and forty five minutes of the occurrence---Keeping in view the inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the police station i.e. 20 kilometer, the FIR was promptly lodged---Occurrence took place in the broad daylight whereas the parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of misidentification---Ocular account was furnished by brother of the deceased i.e. the complainant and maternal uncle of the deceased---Both said witnesses were residents of the same locality where the occurrence took place, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence on the fateful day and time was not unnatural---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record---Both witnesses remained consistent on each and every material point inasmuch as they made deposition according to the circumstances that surfaced in the case, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the ocular account furnished by the prosecution was reliable, straightforward and confidence inspiring---Medical evidence available on the record further corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not paint out any plausible reason as to why the complainant had falsely involved the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of his real brother---Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon---According to the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, the crime empties matched with the weapon recovered from the accused---In these circumstances, there was sufficient material available on record to sustain conviction of the accused---Conviction of accused under section 302(b), P.P.C was maintained---Appeal was partly allowed. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.…
🔒
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