| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2565 2024 SLD 2565 2024 YLR 504 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Appeal No. S-49 of 2020, decided on 9th December, 2022. Dates of hearing: 18th 25th November and 9th December, 2022.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Ghulam Shabbir Mari for Appellants. Muhammad Ali Noonari, D.P.G., Sindh for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. S-49 of 2020, decided on 9th December, 2022. Dates of hearing: 18th 25th November and 9th December, 2022.
Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J
Ghulam Shabbir Mari for Appellants. Muhammad Ali Noonari, D.P.G., Sindh for the State.
SONA KHAN and others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),324,504,34
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 504 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that Trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused to imprisonment for life maximum---Allegation against accused "S" was that he only instigated co-accused for causing murder of deceased; whereas the allegation against other accused "M" as levelled by the prosecution was that he allegedly caused rifle shot injury to deceased which hit him on his chest from right side---No offensive weapon was recovered from possession of accused "M" and per jail roll, he had served out 15 years and 07 months and earned remission of 08 years, 07 months and 01 day; whereas remaining portion of his sentence as shown in jail roll was only 03 months and 29 days---Hence, said accused had served out substantive portion of his sentence---As far as role against accused "S" was concerned, his role was only instigating other accused in commission of the offence---Per Forensic Science Laboratory Report, the offensive weapons were sent to the Laboratory with delay of about 11 days and no explanation had been furnished by the prosecution for sending said weapons with a delay---However, admittedly, the eye-witnesses of the case had fully explained the occurrence as well as each and every aspect of occurrence in sequence---In present case, the complainant was the brother of deceased while other witnesses were close relatives of complainant who were present at the time of incident---Prosecution had not made any irregularity which might warrant the High Court to interfere with the verdict of the Trial Court---Ocular evidence also found corroboration from the medical evidence actuating the cause of death and time of incident as well as weapon used in commission of the offence---Trial Court's verdict in such situation could not be interfered with, however, keeping in view the discrepancies as well as prayer made by defence for converting the case from S.…
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