| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2189 2011 SLD 2189 2011 YLR 840 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 406-J of 2006 and Murder Reference No. 709 of 2005 heard on 25th November, 2010
SH. NAJAM-UL-HASSAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Rana Asad Ullah Khan for Appellant. Shahid Bashir Ch., D.P.G. for the State
Criminal Appeal No. 406-J of 2006 and Murder Reference No. 709 of 2005 heard on 25th November, 2010
SH. NAJAM-UL-HASSAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Rana Asad Ullah Khan for Appellant. Shahid Bashir Ch., D.P.G. for the State
Rana MUHAMMAD SHAHID
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Occurrence took place in front of the shop of the complainant and the deceased in the broad daylight---F.I.R. was promptly registered and postmortem was also conducted within five hours of the occurrence---No time was available for the complainant or the Police to manoeuvre the case---Name of the witness was duly mentioned in the inquest report---Presence of the witness at the place of occurrence when the Police came, was also proved---Said witness was neighbour of the complainant. and his presence at the place of occurrence was more than natural---Only accused had been nominated as an accused and specific role of firing with .12 bore gun on the person of the deceased was attributed to him---Time of occurrence, the kind of weapon and seat of injury mentioned in the postmortem report corroborated the ocular account furnished by the eye-witnesses---Present was a case in which the allegation was against the single accused and the F.I.R. was registered by the son of the deceased---No reason existed for the son to falsely implicate accused---Kith and kin of the deceased did not ordinarily substitute the red culprit---Substitution was a rare phenomenon, because the interested witness would not normally allow the real murderers of their relations to escape by involving innocent persons---No crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence---Police collected blood stained earth from the spot and the cot on which the deceased was present, was also taken into possession which had provided support to the ocular account---Seat of injury was such that the intention of accused was absolutely clear and he was sure that the result of such injury would be the death and nothing else---Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case against accused to its hilt--Nothing was on record entitling accused to any lenient view regarding the sentence---Normal sentence in such like cases was death---No mitigating ground was for awarding lesser penalty to accused---Order accordingly. Muhammad Khalid Khan v. Abdullah and others 2008 SCMR 158; Irshad Ahmad and others v. The State and others PLD 1996…
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