| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2793 2024 SLD 2793 2024 PCRLJ 273 |
Balochistan High Court, Turbat Bench
Criminal Appeal No. (T) 11 and Murder Reference No. (T) 1 of2021, decided on 27th April, 2023.Date of hearing: 12thApril, 2023.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
Abdul Jalil Marwat for Appellant. Ms. Noor Jahan Kahoor, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Jam Saka Dashti for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. (T) 11 and Murder Reference No. (T) 1 of2021, decided on 27th April, 2023.Date of hearing: 12thApril, 2023.
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
Abdul Jalil Marwat for Appellant. Ms. Noor Jahan Kahoor, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Jam Saka Dashti for the Complainant.
SHADEEULLAH---Appellant
VS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother by firing---In the case at hand, the FIR had been lodged with great promptitude wherein the present accused had been nominated as the sole perpetrator of the murder---In the FIR, specific allegations had been levelled against the accused vis-a-vis causing specific injuries to the deceased, and those allegations had subsequently been substantiated and established through consistent statements made by three eye-witnesses, in whose presence the accused dragged the deceased from dates Orchard on the road and caused fires in the presence of natural witnesses---Motive, in this case, was barbaric hostility which had not been seriously doubted during the trial---Moreover, the medical evidence supported the ocular account furnished by the natural and consistent eye-witnesses---Physical custody of accused and the weapon recovered from him were handed over to the local Police by F.C---Moreover, in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., the accused had not disputed him having been identified by the eye-witnesses in the identification parade---In these circumstances, the involvement of accused in the murder had indeed been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt---Variable plea of defence, including sudden provocation, advanced by the accused, did not appeal to logic and reason---Further, accused had failed to produce any witness in his defence who could enter the witness box and confirm the plea being advanced by the accused---Record showed that it was a painful and cold-blooded murder of an innocent and empty-handed young student who came to help his old age parents but was done to death without any reason or fault on his part---No mitigating circumstance for lesser punishment was available---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Hamid Mehmood and another v. The State 2013 SCMR 1314 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother by firing---Ocular account was supported by…
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