Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 894 2023 SLD 894 2023 MLD 462
Balochistan High Court
Civil Revisions Nos. 47, 45 and 66 of 2014, decided on 26th April, 2021.  Date of hearing: 19th April, 2021.
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J
Khuda-e-Nazar and Khalid Ahmed Kubdani for Petitioners (in Civil Revision No. 47 of 2014). Saifullah Sanjrani, Additional Prosecutor General for
Respondents Nos. 6 and 8 (in Civil Revision No. 47 of 2014). Zahid Muqeem Ansari for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5

Mir ABDUL RAB and others---Petitioners

VERSUS

GHULAM HAIDER and others-----Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused was charged for committing murder of daughter of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Prosecution had examined three eye-witnesses---All the eye-witnesses had deposed that accused after committing the murder of victim ran away---All the witnesses were cross examined at length but nothing favourable to the accused came on record---All the eye-witnesses including the father of deceased were natural witnesses being the residents of house infront of which occurrence had taken place---Said witnesses had no enmity to falsely implicate the accused in the case---As prosecution failed to prove motive against the accused, thus death penalty was reduced to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with the modification in sentence. Mst. Nazia Anwar v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 911 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Related witnesses---Scope---Testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be discarded because of their relationship inter se as well as with the deceased. Anwar Shamim and another v. The State 2010 SCMR 1791 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, reduction in---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of daughter of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Motive was against the father of deceased and uncles but prosecution failed to satisfy as to why the daughter of complainant was killed by the accused---Other eye-witnesses had also not mentioned the motive, which was set up in the FIR---Investigation Officer did not interrogate or investigate about the motive as set up in the FIR---Trial Court had also recorded the statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., in a very casual manner and question regarding motive was not put to the accused---As the prosecution failed to prove motive against the accused, thus death penalty was reduced to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with the modification in sentence. (d) Penal…
🔒
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