Case Details

Citation(s)
1975 SLG 3214 = 1975 SLD 3214 = 1975 PLD 460
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 816 of 1973, decided on 2nd October 1974.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Kh. A. Waheed and Ch. Ghulam Murtaza for Appellant. Akhtar Shabir for A.-G. for the State.

PIR SHAH-Appellant

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, (XX of 1965)

Section: 9

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 288

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)  S. 302--Murder trial-Deceased done to death allegedly for having eloped with her paramour-One accused maternal cousin of deceased and other accused maternal uncle of first accused-Influence appearing to have been used during inquiry and deceased's sister and father, principal prosecution witnesses, making concessions in favour of accused-Deceased's sister, however, squarely attributing fatal shot to appellant both before committing Magistrate and Sessions Court- Deceased's father stating firing by both accused in F. 1. R. but during evidence attributing fatal shot to appellant alone-No reason for witnesses to falsely implicate accused-Injuries inflicted from close range, identity of accused not possible to remain undisclosed-Appeal dismissed. (b) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) S. 9-Arms, unlicensed, possession of-Accused living jointly with his son-Contraband pistol recovered from almirah in wall of his residential house--Presumption of accused having exclusive knowledge of pistol's presence could be drawn in circumstances of case. (c) West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1966)  S. 9--Arms, unlicensed, possession of-Accused living in house with other members of his family-Contraband gun, however, brought out by accused himself from an iron box-Accused presumed to have lead knowledge of its existence. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 288-Transfer of statement to Sessions Court--Important and relevant statement of witness made in committal Court not transferred to Sessions Court-Public Prosecutor, held, failed to discharge his duties efficiently and vigilantly-Primary responsibility, held further, toted upon Court itself to decide whether or not particular statement had to be transferred to Sessions record-Sessions Judge having failed to exercise his discretion in such matter, equally responsible for remissness. Date of hearing : 2nd October 1974.                                                                      …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register