Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3525 2025 SLD 3525 = 2025 YLR 1321
Sindh High Court
Criminal Jail Appeals Nos. 716 and 857 of 2019, decided on 10th December, 2024.
Before Naimatullah Phulpoto, J
Iftikhar Ahmed Shah, Muhammad Nasir, Ms. Shaista Gul and Raja Zeeshan for Appellants. Muhammad Iqbal Awan Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State. Mehmood A. Qureshi for the Complainant.

Syed JEHANZAIB and another ---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),109,34

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 22.129(g),164,165

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--Appreciation of evidence---Admission of accused before police---Inadmissible evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and his wife---Case of prosecution was that both accused were arrested by police under S.54, Cr.P.C and during interrogation, they admitted that they had committed murders of deceased in their house---Case was already registered on 29.11.2014 at Police Station under Ss. 302/109/34, P.P.C, against unknown persons and dead bodies were shifted to the hospital on 28.11.2014--House where incident had occurred was jointly pointed out by both the accused--Admission by both accused before Police was inadmissible in evidence--Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention--Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence not corroborated by independent evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and his wife---Prosecution had extensively relied upon the testimony of tenant in a portion of the house of deceased---According to evidence of said witness, he had seen accused in the house of deceased on 22.11.2014 but according to medical evidence both deceased were done to death in between 24.11.2014 to 28.11.2014 which clearly showed that there was gap of two days, which was not explained---Said witness had not specifically mentioned first or second floor of the house where he had seen accused on 22.11.2014---Record showed that said witness was residing with his family in the said house, but prosecution had failed to examine wife of the said witness for the purpose of corroboration---Prosecution had also heavily relied upon the evidence of another witness, who deposed that on 23.11.2014, he had gone to a shrine to pray for his job, and it was morning time; that several persons were already there, when he heard gunshot report from adjacent house; that after 45 minutes of firing, when he was waiting outside the shrine, he saw that a person sitting on motorcycle and another…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register