| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3022 = 2001 SLD 3022 = 2001 YLR 108 |
Shariat Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeal No.25 and Reference No.64 of 1999, decided on 13th June, 2001.
Presented By: Iftikhar Hussain Butt, J
Mirza Muhammad Nisar for Appellants. Muhammad Riaz Alam for the Complainant. Sardar Muhammad Ilyas Khan. A.A. ‑G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No.25 and Reference No.64 of 1999, decided on 13th June, 2001.
Presented By: Iftikhar Hussain Butt, J
Mirza Muhammad Nisar for Appellants. Muhammad Riaz Alam for the Complainant. Sardar Muhammad Ilyas Khan. A.A. ‑G. for the State.
NAMATULLAH and another‑‑‑Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE through Muhammad Hanif, and another‑‑‑Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 307, 34, 302, 300
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section: 154
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 307/34‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Penal Laws Enforcement Act (IX of 1974), Ss. 5 & 15‑‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Prosecution witnesses whose presence at the place of the occurrence was not doubted, had given first hand account of the occurrence before the Trial Court ‑‑‑Eye witnesses were unanimous on the point that the deceased was done away with his life by inflicting injuries with a "Churri " by the accused‑‑‑Eye‑witnesses who had no enmity or grudge to falsely implicate the accused remained firm in cross‑examination and story narrated by said witnesses stood corroborated by medical and other corroborating and confirmatory evidence‑‑‑Eye‑witnesses were found "Adil" in purgation‑‑‑F.I.R. was lodged promptly and the prosecution case did not suffer from any material illegality or infirmity‑‑‑Motive of occurrence alleged by the prosecution stood proved by the evidence adduced by the prosecution‑‑‑Recovery of weapon of offence stood proved and recovery of blood‑stained grass and clay and other articles from the place of occurrence, had provided sufficient corroboratory evidence‑‑ Report of Chemical Examiner had shown that recovered articles were stained with blood‑‑ Version set up by the accused in defence seemed to be improbable, concocted and afterthought in view of the evidence and the circumstances‑‑‑Non‑explanation of any injury on the person of accused was not by itself sufficient to create any doubt in prosecution story‑‑‑Accused could not prove that the offence was committed under state of grave and sudden provocation‑‑‑No material irregularity was found which could injure the main story of the prosecution or damage the credibility of the eye‑witnesses‑‑‑Prosecution had brought guilt home to the accused beyond any shadow of doubt‑‑‑No mitigating circumstances having been found for lesser punishment to the accused "Qisas " being normal sentence of murder, would meet the ends of justice. 2001 P.Cr. LJ 524; Khalid and another v. The State PLJ 1983 SC (AJ&K) 98 and 1992 SCR 249 ref. (b) Criminal trial‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Evidence‑‑‑Words 'Contradiction' and 'discrepancy' in…