| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6113 2024 SLD 6113 = 2024 PCRLJ 813 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 223 and Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 2020, decided on 6th April, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Merajuddin for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2020). Siraj Ali Khan Chandio, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2020). Muhammad Ilyas Khan Tanoli for Applicant (in Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 2020). Merajuddin for
Respondents (in Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 2020).
Criminal Appeal No. 223 and Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 2020, decided on 6th April, 2022.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Khadim Hussain Tunio, JJ
Merajuddin for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2020). Siraj Ali Khan Chandio, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 223 of 2020). Muhammad Ilyas Khan Tanoli for Applicant (in Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 2020). Merajuddin for
Respondents (in Criminal Revision Application No. 89 of 2020).
MUHAMMAD YASIR KHAN and another---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),34
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 154
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Ocular account proved---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased who was accompanying the complainant---Ocular account of the incident was primarily furnished by three witnesses---Presence of the three eye-witnesses was not disputed by the accused persons, rather they had admitted the quarrel took place between the parties through their statements filed before the Trial Court---When the statement of complainant under S. 154, Cr.P.C., was put in juxtaposition with his depositions recorded before the trial Court and depositions of two eye-witnesses, they perfectly aligned with each other from minor details to major events such as the presence of accused--Witnesses were in comfortable unison on all the salient aspects of the incident as well as details collateral therewith---Cross-examination remained inconsequential inasmuch as nothing adverse could be solicited from the witnesses except for a volley of suggestions, vehemently denied---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.Hashim Raza alias Taaro v. The State 2020 PCr.LJ Note 22; Mst. Asia Bibi v.The State PLD 2019 SC 64; PLD 2019 SC 527 (notice to police constable Khizr Hayat son of Hadayat Ullah on account of his false statement; in the matter of); Waris v. The State 2019 YLR 2381; Muhammad Ibrahim and another v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1378; Amir Muhammad v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1033; Abdul Jabbar v. The State and another 2019 YLR 1073; Abdul Hassan v. The State and 6 others 2019 PCr.LJ 777; Nadeem alias Kala v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 153; Haroon Shafiq v. The State and others 2018 SCMR 2118; Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486; Zahir Yousaf and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 2002; Khurram Jalali v. The State 2017 PCr.LJ Note 19; Shams-ul-Haq and 2 others v. The State 2014 MLD 1504; Ali Haider and 2 others v. The State 2014 PCr.LJ 783; Ghulam Qadir v. The State 2014 PCr.LJ 865; Shah Rukh v. The State 2013…