| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 138 1982 SLD 138 1982 SCMR 49 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. K-6 of 1981, decision dated: 12-09-1981
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J., ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate, Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate, instructed by Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. A. Sattar Sheikh, Addl. Advocate General (Sind) instructed by Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. K-6 of 1981, decision dated: 12-09-1981
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J., ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, JJ
A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate, Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate, instructed by Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. A. Sattar Sheikh, Addl. Advocate General (Sind) instructed by Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
GHAZI AND others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- S. 302/34-[Murder-case]-Appreciation of evidence-Strong enmity existing between parties - Eye-witnesses very close relations of deceased-Witness of alleged recoveries of incriminating articles brother-in-law of complainant and marrying widow of deceased after incident Medical evidence revealing one blunt injury on person of deceased but prosecution not attributing any such injury to appellants-Witnesses allegedly unable to see with what weapons and in what manner deceased received injuries, veracity of witness as such with regard to complicity and identity of appellants rendered doubtful and reasonable doubt may arise about their very presence at time of occurrence-One of appellants found to have had gunshot injury at time of his arrest and such injury not explained-Incriminating articles sent to Experts after great delay and their reports received after several years-Station House Officer not in a position to state condition of articles when sent to Experts for examine 'on-Held, highly unsafe in circumstances to rely upon opinion of Experts-Evidence of recoveries being ruled out of consideration prosecution evidence left to support case consisting only of interested and inimical ocular testimony which could not serve as safe foundation for sustaining guilt of appellants.-[Evidence]. Allahando v. The State 1969 S C M R 714 ref. JUDGMENT ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.-This appeal by special leave, arises out of the judgment and order, dated 20-9-1980, passed by a Division Bench of the Sind High Court, whereby the sentences of death and fine awarded to the appellants under section 302 read with 34, P. P. C. for the murder of one Hotu were confirmed and their appeal dismissed. ' The appellants were tried and convicted by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, for the aforesaid offence and were awarded sentence of death each and were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, which if realized, Rs. 1,500 out of it were ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased, as compensation. Appellant Ghazi was further convicted under section 13(E) of the Arms Ordnance and sentenced to suffer R. I. for one year's. The occurrence in this…
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