Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

(a) Criminal trial Witness-Evidence, appreciation of-Witness shown to have acted as a Mashir on one previous occasion-Fact by itself, held, not sufficient to discredit his evidence.-[Witness-Evidence]. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Murder----Evidence, appreciation of--Natural eye witnesses of occurrence, giving very consistent evidence which in turn receiving strong support from three independent .witnesses as well as evidence of recovery of crime weapons-Conviction main tained, in circumstances.-[Witness-Evidence]. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302-Murder-Sentence-During trial as well as after convic tion accused remaining in custody for a long period of over 5 years and having expectation of life for a period of 20 months-Sentence, held, need not be enhanced, in circumstances.-[Sentence] Samano v. The State 1973 S C M R 162 and Muhammad Hassan v. The State 1973 S C M R 344 ref. Date of hearing: 15thJuly, 1980.                                                                                                                                JUDGMENT ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, ACTG. C. J.-The three appellants, Umer, son of Ashraf Solangi, Muhammad Hassan, son of Ashraf Solangi and Darya Khan, son of Punhoon Bhurgri, were tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu on charges under section 302/452/34, P. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000 (in default R. I. for one dear) under section 302/34, P. P. C. and R. I. for two years under section 452/34, P. P. C. The judgment was announced on 27th February, 1977. Appellant Muhammad Hassan was separately tried on a charge under section 13-E of the Arms Act and sentenced to R. I. for one year. All the convictions and sentences have been appealed against. When the appeal against the judgment in the main case of murder and trespass came up for regular hearing before a…