| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2562 2024 SLD 2562 2024 YLR 470 |
Sindh Chief Court
Special Criminal A.T.A. No. 106 of 2021, decided on 6thDecember, 2022.Date of hearing: 30th November, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Arshad Hussain Khan, JJ
Moula Bux Bhutto for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State.
Special Criminal A.T.A. No. 106 of 2021, decided on 6thDecember, 2022.Date of hearing: 30th November, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Arshad Hussain Khan, JJ
Moula Bux Bhutto for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State.
MUHAMMAD SOHAIL alias KALOO alias FAHAD---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 336-B,337-L(2)
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 336-B & 337-L(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid), causing hurt, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one month in lodging FIR---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for sprinkling acid on the face of complainant, due to which, his face, neck, eyes and hands were burnt---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after a delay of one month, however that delay was not fatal to the prosecution case as the delay in lodging the FIR had been fully explained that the complainant was confined in hospital with serious burn injuries to his face including his mouth, which precluded him from speaking and that as soon as he was well enough he recorded his S. 154, Cr.P.C. statement which was converted into the FIR in this case---Thus, the delay in lodging the FIR was not found to be fatal to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt but due to non-production of mobile phones and CDR data, the sentence of the accused under S. 336(b), P.P.C, was reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Muhammad Nadeem alias Deemi v. The State 2011 SCMR 872 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 336-B & 337-L(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid), causing hurt, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account believable---Accused was charged for sprinkling acid on the face of complainant, due to which, his face, neck, eyes and hands were burnt---Neither witness nor the complainant who lost his eye sight during the acid attack by the accused were dented during lengthy cross-examination---Evidence of said witnesses had not significantly improved upon their S. 161, Cr.P.C. statements and S.154 Cr.P.C statements respectively---Said witnesses had given their evidence in a straightforward and natural manner and in their evidence they were fully corroborative of each other in respect of meeting each other at school; falling in love; arranging a marriage with the consent of their…
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