Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 2185 2026 SLD 2185 = 2026 PCRLJ 486
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 2024, decided on 23rd June, 2025.
Presented By: Shaukat Ali Rakhshani and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ
Aqil v. The State 2023 SCMR 831 rel.        Aminullah Kakar for Appellant.        Abdul Karim, State Counsel for the State.

MIR ZAMAN alias Muhammad Alam---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 supported by medical evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing and also causing firearm injuries to the complainant and a passerby---Case of complainant was that on the fateful day, he, his brother and son came to attend proceedings of a criminal case, where their opponents i.e., appellants and one unknown culprit were also present and that at 10:20 am, when they left the Court and reached near A Motors, appellant made indiscriminate firing at their back, due to which two bullets hit his deceased brother's right thigh, whereas he received a bullet on his right leg and that a passerby also received a bullet injury on his right leg---Nonetheless, complainant s deceased brother succumbed to the injuries due to excessive bleeding---Complainant further averred that earlier on 15.02.2018, a dispute arose between the parties due to which criminal case was registered at Police Station, thus the appellant and co-accused persons having anguish of an old animosity, launched attack upon them---Despite lengthy cross-examination, complainant remained firm and consistent to his examination-in-chief, thus his statement went unshaken, which sounds natural, confidence inspiring and truthful---Son of complainant appeared as witness, his statement was in line with the statement of complainant and reiterated what complainant had stated---Said witness was cross-examined at length, but the defence failed to shatter his testimony as he remained firmed and consistent to his examination in chief, thus his testimony went un-shattered---Presence of the said witnesses had been found to be natural, who had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant---Defence had failed to bring anything on record to establish false implication or substitution of the real culprits with the appellant---Injured witness testified that on 09.05.2018, he went to Faisal Bank, with his wife, where whilst returning, suddenly firing started and that a bullet hit his left leg and he got injured,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register