| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 2219 2026 SLD 2219 = 2026 PCRLJ 849 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2025, decided on 1st December, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Abdul Wali Khan Nasar for Appellant. Abdul Karim Malghani, State Counsel for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2025, decided on 1st December, 2025.
Presented By: Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J
Abdul Wali Khan Nasar for Appellant. Abdul Karim Malghani, State Counsel for the State.
ABDUL SATTAR---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 337-F(iii), 337-F(iv)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 337-F(iii) & 337-F(iv)---Causing ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two hours in lodging the FIR plausibly explained ---Accused was charged for causing injuries to the brother of complainant---Occurrence took place in brought daylight at approximately 3:10 p.m. and the FIR was lodged promptly on the same day at 5:10 p.m.---Two-hours interval was reasonably explained that the injured witness was immediately taken to the hospital to save his life---Hence, there was no element of deliberate or conscious delay in reporting the matter to the police---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, the sentence of imprisonment was not sustainable, thus was set-aside, whereas the payment of daman amount was affirmed---Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 337-F(iii) & 337-F(iv)---Causing ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witness and injured at the place of occurrence established---Accused was charged for causing injuries to the brother of complainant---Injured sustained three sharp-edged weapon injuries i.e. one on the left side of the neck, one on the front of the left forearm, and another on the back of the left forearm---As per the FIR and the ocular account, those injuries were specifically attributed to the appellant, who used a dagger to inflict multiple blows upon the injured, including one on a vital part of the body, i.e., the neck---Testimonies of eye-witness and the injured were natural, consistent, and mutually corroborative---Being residents of the same locality, their presence at the place of occurrence was entirely natural and could not be termed as that of chance witnesses---Statements of said witnesses were further strengthened by the corroborative evidence i.e. the medical findings, recovery of the knife and seizure of blood-stained soil and clothes, which together formed a coherent and confidence-inspiring chain of circumstances---Furthermore, the testimony of injured, being the victim himself, provided…