Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3247 = 1981 SLD 3247 = 1981 SCMR 809
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No..1g4 of 1979, decided on 20th June, 1981. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3rd April, 1979 passed in Cr, A. No. 682 of 1977).
Presented By: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Karam Elahee Chauhan and Muhammad Ajzal Zullah, JJ
Sh. Nasim Hassan, Advocate and Rana -YaqboolAhmad Qadri, Advosate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo far the State.

GHULAM ABBAS-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)  S. 302- [Murder- case]-Appreciation of evidence--First infor mation report and dying declaration made promptly and proved by disinterested witnesses including a Doctor-Eye-witnesses clearly stating culprit having not worn any head dress but refusing to speculate regarding his wearing apparel -- Witnesses having been examined nearly a year and a half after occurrence, failure to recollect an unimportant element in case makes no difference News item appearing in a newspaper two days after lodg ing of F. 1. R and name of culprit clearly mentioned in such F. 1. R.-News item not mentioning name of culprit although person responsible for news could have easily ascertained his name from Police Station and could also have known that such person's name found mention not only in F. I. R. but also in dying declara tion-Proprietor and Editor of newspaper also not giving source of news item-News item also not mentioning deceased having suffered a thigh injury in occurrence resulting ,n his death--News item containing several falsehoods and giving wrong impression of deceased having died at spot--Wild but mischievous attempt made in news item to dilute effect of dying declaration and to exclude possibility of culprit having been identified at spot by introducing so-called naqab-News item in circumstances a worthless piece of paper and liable to be excluded from evidence Deposition of defence witness contradicting itself inter se and not consistent with natural course of events-Occurrence being a day- light occurrence, culprit being named within few minutes of occur rence and taking place at a public place could not be considered as unwitnessed occurrence -One of eye-witnesses injured in occurrence when trying to catch accused-No reason for witness to substitute an innocent person for real killer-Other prosecution witnesses giving good explanations for their presence at spot--Entire investigation taking very short time after occurrence when matter absolutely fresh-Petitioner accused, held, rightly convicted for offence of murder. Date of hearing : 20th June, 1981.                      …
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register