Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302,302(b),324,337-F(i),337-Y(ii)

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 340(2),342,382B,544A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324/34, 337-F(i) & 337-Y(ii)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing damiyah---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Counsel for accused instead of praying for acquittal of accused, had sought for commutation of death sentence awarded to accused into that of life imprisonment---Complainant and injured witness were the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who had furnished straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence and despite lengthy cross-examination the defence had failed to create any dent in their veracity, except a few discrepancies which were immaterial and not fatal to their evidence---Said witnesses were accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence and being residents of the area, their presence at the relevant time could not be doubted by any degree of seriousness---Occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight, in such circumstances there could be no question of mistaken identity at all---Evidence of said witnesses did not suffer from any material contradiction, discrepancy or inherent infirmity and was consistent with the probability, materially fitting in with other evidence, more particularly the medical evidence---Complainant and other prosecution witness though were real brothers of deceased, but only on account of relationship, they could not be termed as interested witnesses, for the reason that they had no direct animosity with accused, who had been nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of firing---Even otherwise, such witnesses were not expected to let the real culprits go scot-free and substitute accused in such kind of offence, because substitution was a rare phenomenon---Accused after commission of the offence, absconded and remained a fugitive from law---Abscondence, by itself, was not sufficient to convict accused, but was a strong corroborative piece of evidence of other direct and circumstantial evidence in the case---Said conduct of accused, immediately after the incident, was indicative of his guilt---Role of firing having been attributed to four accused persons, it had not been established beyond doubt as to by whose fire shot the deceased had…

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