Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3017 2025 SLD 3017 = 2025 YLR 854
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 2019, decided on 16th August, 2023.
Before Irshad Ali Shah, J
Habib-ur-Rehman Jiskani for Appellant. Muhammad Anwar Mahar, DDPP for the State.

ALI HASSAB BROHI---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

(a)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two days in lodging the FIR---First Information Report lodged after consultation---Effect---Accused was charged that he with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the son of complainant by causing him fire shot injuries---Record showed that after referring the dead body to hospital for postmortem, complainant then lodged report of the incident formally with the police after two days of the incident--As per witness, the FIR of the incident was lodged with delay, after consultation with relatives---First Information Report of the incident lodged with delay and after due consultation with relatives could reasonably be judged with doubt---Investigating Officer, who conducted initial investigation of the case, on asking was fair enough to admit that inquest report contained a note that the deceased was killed by unknown culprits---Surprisingly, such inquest report was attested by the complainant himself which prima facie suggested that the name of the appellant was disclosed by the complainant in the FIR after due consultation by consuming two days---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b)    Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--Material witnesses not examined---Accused was charged that he with rest of the culprits in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the son of complainant by causing him fire shot injuries---Police Officer, who allegedly arrested the appellant, had not been examined by the prosecution--Non-examination of said Police Officer could not be lost sight of---Investigating Officer who had conducted further investigation of the case was also not examined by the prosecution---Non-examination of said Investigating Officer, as per another Police Officer, was for the reason that he was not able to speak on account of throat cancer---Nothing had been brought on record which may suggest that Investigating Officer was actually suffering from…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register