| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 2154 2023 SLD 2154 2023 SCMR 1508 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 816 of 2017 and Criminal Petition No. 775-L of 2016, decided on 14th June, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 16.05.2016, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2012 and Murder Reference No. 81 of
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) for Petitioners (in J.P. No. 816 of 2017). Muhammad Zubair Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 7750-L of 2016). Muhammad Jaffar, Additional P.G. Pun
Jail Petition No. 816 of 2017 and Criminal Petition No. 775-L of 2016, decided on 14th June, 2023. (On appeal against the judgment dated 16.05.2016, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 2012 and Murder Reference No. 81 of
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood, Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Malik Matee Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court (via video link from Lahore) for Petitioners (in J.P. No. 816 of 2017). Muhammad Zubair Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Criminal Petition No. 7750-L of 2016). Muhammad Jaffar, Additional P.G. Pun
MASKEEN ULLAH and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
The STATE and another---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence--- Day time occurrence--- Promptly lodged FIR--- Prompt post-mortem examination---Occurrence had taken place in a broad day light that too, at a place where certain shops were also available and the place of occurrence as well as the time of occurrence had not been disputed---Occurrence took place at 5:15 p.m. and after the occurrence, it was the priority of eye-witnesses, being father and brother of the deceased to shift the injured/deceased to the hospital, but he succumbed to the injuries on the way---Thereafter, they brought back the dead body to their house and complainant proceeded to the Police Station which was at a distance of 21 kilometers away from the place of occurrence and lodged the report at 8:00 p.m.; so there was no conscious delay in lodging the FIR, as prior to that the anxiety of the close relatives was to make efforts to save life of their nearer one---Promptness of the FIR also eliminated the chance of consultation and deliberation. It is also a circumstance that after registration of the FIR, the police party again travelled back to the house of the complainant, where dead body was lying---Inquest report and injury statement was prepared there and thereafter dead body was dispatched to the hospital where on the same night at 5:00 a.m. the postmortem was conducted. So any delay in conducting the postmortem was also explained from the circumstances, especially when Police Station was at a distance of 21 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Both the Courts below after appraisal and re-appraisal of the entire evidence rightly came to the conclusion regarding guilt of the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Eye-witnesses closely related to deceased---Inconsequential---Ocular account consisted of statements of two witnesses, who were close relatives of the deceased but they had no motive to falsely implicate the accuse in this case---Both of them remained consistent on each and every material point and despite…
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