| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2185 2011 SLD 2185 2011 YLR 823 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 523, 478 of 2005; 498 of 2009 andMurder Reference No. 251 of 2005 heard on 9th December, 2010
SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem and Aftab Hussain Bhatti for Appellants. Shahid Bashir Chaudhry, Deputy Prosecutor-General for
Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos. 523, 478 of 2005; 498 of 2009 andMurder Reference No. 251 of 2005 heard on 9th December, 2010
SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN AND SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, JJ
Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem and Aftab Hussain Bhatti for Appellants. Shahid Bashir Chaudhry, Deputy Prosecutor-General for
Respondent
MEHBOOB and othersVsTHE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b)/324/34/148---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---F.I.R. was promptly lodged---Prosecution witness who received one firearm injury on his left thigh in the occurrence, his presence at the spot was natural---Six crime empties and firearms recovered at the instance of two accused, were sent to the firearm expert; and report of said firearm expert was that all six empties were fired from the rifle recovered from main accused---Main accused and one of his co-accused were assigned specific injuries on the person of the deceased, which later on were found to be present on the person of the deceased by the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination---Main motive was also alleged against said accused; they were present at the place of occurrence at a very first instance and remaining accused came later on---Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved its case against said two accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---Case of the other two accused remained doubtful as the injuries assigned to them on the person of deceased were also assigned to five other persons---Question of common intention, was not proved from the facts and circumstances of the case, because during investigation four persons were found innocent, three remained unknown and two were acquitted by the Trial Court---Prosecution, in circumstances, to some extent was not telling the truth and was deliberately concealing some true facts from the court---Prosecution was duty bound to prove its case; and the benefit of every doubt ought to be extended in favour of accused---Prosecution had been able to prove its case against main accused and his co-accused, whereas no sufficient evidence was available to connect remaining two co-accused with the offence of murder---Main accused having also received injuries, it had indicated that prosecution was suppressing something---Death sentence awarded to main accused, in circumstances, was too harsh and he was entitled to leniency---Upholding his conviction under S.302(b)/34, P.P.C. his death sentence was converted to that of imprisonment for life---Conviction…
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