| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 6422 2011 SLD 6422 2011 PCRLJ 389 |
Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2009, decided on 19th October, 2010.Date of hearing: 19th October, 2010.
BEFORE RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, C.J., AND SAHIB KHAN, J
Johar Ali and Amjad Hussain for Appellant. Dy. A.G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2009, decided on 19th October, 2010.Date of hearing: 19th October, 2010.
BEFORE RAJA JALAL-UD-DIN, C.J., AND SAHIB KHAN, J
Johar Ali and Amjad Hussain for Appellant. Dy. A.G. for the State.
NAVEED HUSSAIN---APPELLANT
VS
THE STATE---RESPONDENT
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 6,7,21-H
Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, (XX of 1965)
Section: 13(d)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 18O0)--- ----S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Identification of accused immediately after the occurrence being not possible, his name did not appear in the F.I.R.---Substitution of two empty shells, was not possible which was found from the scene and were sealed in the presence of witness for onward transmission---Statements of witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. as well as the statements recorded by competent Judicial Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C., did not suffer from any defect---All the possible legal formalities were completed before recording of such statements---Such statements were voluntary and true---Identification parade was conducted by a very competent and impartial Assistant Commissioner fulfilling all the formalities of the identification parade in presence of witnesses, who deposed in favour of the prosecution and their statements had not been shattered by the defence---Such fact had provided strong inference against accused and proved the case against him and said piece of evidence was a strong link in the commission of offence---Defence had failed to bring on record any circumstances whereby it could be considered that accused had been involved in the case due to mala fide intention other than the motive put forward by the prosecution---Prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused---Judgment of conviction and sentence passed against accused was based on fact; and nothing was available to indicate that judgment passed by the Trial Court was based on any error of law or was opposed to well established principles of judicial approach; or it could in any manner be characterized as unjustified---Sentence of death was rightly and carefully awarded to accused, which did not admit of any interference by Chief Court. 2006 PCr.LJ 1671; 2006 PCr.LJ 1693; 1998 PCr.LJ 1236; 1998 PCr.LJ 2104; 1983 PCr.LJ 113; 1983 PCr.LJ 1398; 2010 GBLR 249; 1982 PCr.LJ 720; 1982 PCr.LJ 724; 1982 PCr.LJ 635; 1982 PCr.LJ 642; PLD 1989 SC 20; 1982 PCr.LJ 635; PLD 1963…
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