Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 381 1981 SLD 381 1981 SCMR 678
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. K 19 and K-20 of 1979, decision dated: 27th January1981.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 17-09-1978 in Confirmation Case 18 of 1977 and in Cr. Appeals 82 and 90 of 1977)
DORAB PATEL, ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, JJ
Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate, Ahmadullah Farooq, Advocate-on-Record and Muhammad, Ali Sheikh, Advocate for Appellants. Rashid Akhtar Qureshi, Advocate and S. M. Abbas, Advocate on-Record for the State.

ABDUL SATTAR AND another

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302/392/34 --Murder --- Dacoity -- Appreciation of evidence-- Evidence of recovery discrepant and rightly rejected by both lower Courts-Accused appellants being complete strangers to prosecution witnesses, recognition of accused by prosecution witnesses to be taken with considerable amount of caution and to be scrutinized very care fully-Discrepancies in description of assailants by witnesses-Wrongly ignored by lower Courts on ground of their being educated or disinterested--One witness not able to identify culprits, time being very short, but time not short for other witnesses-Another witness having merely seen culprits running away could not have had sufficient time to observe their features--One witness though identifying culprits at identification parade yet his name not finding mention in F. I. R.Β­ Discrepancies in statements of witnesses and improbabilities inherent in their versions particularly contradictory descriptions of height of assailants as given by them and mentioning them as boys of young boys, held, leads to only conclusion of real culprits having escaped and accused appellants being not concerned with crime. Ramzan and others v. Emperor A I R 1929 Sind 149 ref. JUDGMENT DORAB PATEL, J.-Mahmood, tire owner of a shop known as Tee Vee Traders of Station Road, Hyderabad, was shot dead in his shop at about 2-30 P.m. On 13-3-1973 and a tape-recorder was also stolen from the shop. Therefore, the appellants were tried under section 302/34, P. P. C and section 302/34, P. P. C. for the murder of Mahmood and for the robbery. And, in order to prove its case; the prosecution examined seven persons as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The prosecution also relied on the recovery of the pistol used for killing Mahmood and the tape-recorder alleged to have been stolen from his shop. However, the pistol was produced not by the appellant. Abdul Sattar, who had, according to the prosecution shot dead the deceased, but by the appellant Yaqoob. And, on the other hand, the tape-recorder alleged to have been stolen by the appellant, Yaqoob, was produced by the appellant, Abdul Sattar. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who bad the…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492