| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6812 2024 SLD 6812 = 2024 YLR 2554 |
Balochistan High Court, Sibi Bench
Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022 and Criminal Revision Petition No. (s)04 of 2023, decided on 25th September, 2023.
Before Zaheer-ud-Din Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Mehmood Sadiq Khokhar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022). Jamil Akhtar Gajani, Addl. PG. for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. (s)04 of 2023). Mehmood Sadiq Khokhar for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in Criminal Revision No. (s)04 of 2023). Jamil Akhtar Gajanji, Addl. PG for the State (in Criminal Revision No. (s)04 of 2023).
Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022 and Criminal Revision Petition No. (s)04 of 2023, decided on 25th September, 2023.
Before Zaheer-ud-Din Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
Mehmood Sadiq Khokhar for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022). Jamil Akhtar Gajani, Addl. PG. for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. (s)116 of 2022). Ahsan Rafiq Rana for the Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. (s)04 of 2023). Mehmood Sadiq Khokhar for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in Criminal Revision No. (s)04 of 2023). Jamil Akhtar Gajanji, Addl. PG for the State (in Criminal Revision No. (s)04 of 2023).
AKHTAR ALI and others---Appellants
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Arms Ordinance, 1965
Section: 13(e)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by witnesses---Scope---Accused persons were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which nephew of the complainant was hit and died whereas another person sustained firearm injuries---Motive was stated to be a prior exchange of harsh words between complainant and his nephew with the accused persons--Witnesses had affirmed and corroborated the same story as narrated by complainant and injured witness---Both of them stated that on 26.03.2021 after hearing fire shots, when they reached the crime scene, they had seenthree accused persons armed with Kalashnikov, 223 rifle and TT pistol respectively, who made firing upon deceased, due to which he received firearm injuries and that the complainant tried to apprehend them, but on account of firing of unknown culprit other accused sustained firearm injuries and fell down on the ground---Testimony of said two witnesses demonstrated that though they arrived at the crime scene, but it could not be believed that they had seen the accused making fireshots because in view of the statements of complainant and injured a lot had happened before their arrival, thus their depositions seemed a bit exaggerated, whereupon explicit reliance would not be safe---However, thetestimony of said witnesses regarding remaining facts was relevant and confidence inspiring, particularly, regarding apprehension of accused, who was found injured and their attempt to chase and apprehend the other culprits---Appeal to the extent of accused persons "MA and AA" was dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to them was maintained, whereas the appeal to the extent of accused "GY" was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence supported ocular account---Accused persons were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which nephew of the complainant was hit and died whereas another person sustained firearm injuries---Medico-Legal Certificate of deceased confirmed the ocular…