Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 3584 2025 SLD 3584 = 2025 MLD 797
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 298 of 2018, decided on 12th September, 2023.
Before Irshad Ali Shah, J
Muhammad Farooq for Appellant. Muhammad Anwar Mahar, DDPP for the State. Syed Lal Hussain Shah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 12th September, 2023.

ABDUL HAMEED SHAH---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b), 324 ,34

 (a)  Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged that he with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, not only caused fire shot injuries to the sons of complainant but also caused danda blow to complainant with intention to commit their murder; and one son of the complainant died because of his injuries---Complainant in his FIR stated that on 28.04.2015 his two sons and his nephews were having scuffle with each other, he intervened to separate them; in the meanwhile appellant and co-accused took out their pistols; appellant fired at son of complainant which hit him on his right thigh while co-accused fired at other son of complainant which hit him on first finger of his right hand; then the brother of appellant arrived, who caused danda blow to him on his head; and finally the complainant and his sons were taken to hospital--

-Complainant and his sons were discharged after treatment while other injured was shifted to another hospital who died on 01.05.2014---Evidence of the complainant was silent with regard to causing him danda blow by co-accused--- Except such omission, complainant had supported the narration made by him in his FIR to a large extent---Whatever was stated by injured got support from evidence of witness---Complainant and both of his witnesses had stood by their version on all material points and they could not be disbelieved only for the reason that they were related inter-se and/or there was no independent witness to the incident---Complainant and his witnesses indeed had no reason to involve the appellant in the case falsely who too was their close relative---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register