Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 378 1983 SLD 378 1983 PLD 88
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 187 of 1977, decision dated: 14-10-1982.
ANWARUL HAQ, C.J., DORAB PATEL AND MUHAMMAD HALEEM, JJ
Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. All Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellant. Muhammad Bashir, Advocate for the State.

KALA

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-S. 302-[Murder-case]-Appreciation of evidence-Time of occurrence as stated by prosecution witnesses 5-30 a.m., month being June, sufficient light existed to enable identification of accused known to witnesses-Time corresponding with opinion of medical -witness-Occurrence, hence, not an unwitnessed crime-Prosecution witness T though mentioning in F. I. R. that accused injured a mandha of deceased yet during commitment proceedings and at trial he mentioned bhainsa and no attempt made to confront him with such contradiction in cross-examination-No challenge having been made as to kind of animal police officers appearing to have written mandha by mistake No reason for prosecution witness to falsely implicate accused in a capital offence-Omission by witness T to mention witness 1 as eyewitness-Could not retract from evidence of T, &e having given a straightforward and consistent account of manner in which assault launched-No reason to differ from concurrent findings of Courts below as to truthfulness of witness T-Mere relationship of witness with deceased being no ground for doubting veracity of witness accused could be convicted on his evidence alone-Evidence of witness 1 being of disinterested nature and possibly his presence near spot of occurrence not noticed by first informant omission of his name from F. I. R. of no significance--Left side of body of deceased having to be opposite to right side of accused when attack launched from front on head of deceased, no matter whether blow actually struck left or right side of victim-No contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence on such score-Conviction of accused appellant, held, justified. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- - S. 302-[Murder-case]-Sentence-Mitigation-Mere fact of deceased having injured an animal belonging to accused a few days before occurrence-Held, could not be treated as providing a mitigating circumstance especially when a compromise also effected by village panchayat and accused awarded compensation for damage caused.[Sentence]. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860}-- S. 302-[Murder-case]-Intention-Appellant giving a blow with full fore with an iron implement on…
🔒
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