Case Details

Citation(s)
1984 SLG 384 1984 SLD 384 1984 PLD 319
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 150 and Murder Reference No. 163 of 1981, heard on 13th March, 1984. dates of hearing : 12th and 13th March, 1984
KAMAL MUSTAFA BOKHARI AND IJAZ NISAR, JJ
Sahibzadia Farooq All Khan for Appellant. Nisar A. Saeed for the State

FARID--Convict---Appellant

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -- S. 302-Murder-Accused caught red-handed-Eye-witnesses giving consistent account of occurrence-No personal enmity of eye-witnesses against accused to falsely implicate him present-Eye-witnesses though subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable to accused could be elicited-Prosecution, witnesses fully corroborating each other-Eye-witnesses corroborated by medical evidence-Crime weapon seized from possession of accused at time of occurrence then and there-Blood-stained clothes removed from person of accused by police-No explanation from accused pleading not guilty, forthcoming as to how accused came into hands of prosecution witnesses-Motive also established-Held, circumstance that accused was caught red-handed was a very strong piece of evidence against accused-Prosecution witnesses being natural witnesses duly corroborated by other witnesses, though related to deceased, their evidence could not be discarded on score of their relationship alone - Accused rightly convicted in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -- S. 302-Murder-Sentence-Mitigation-Fact that deceased (lady) was previously married to accused but rukhsati was yet to take place when accused was sent to jail in connection with a murder case ­Deceased contracting second marriage in absence of accused when he was serving out sentence in jail-Prosecution stating that accused had divorced her and she after that had contracted another marriage having given birth to four children from that wedlock-Prosecution unable to lead any convincing evidence to show that accused had divorced deceased-No document or witness produced to show that divorce was pronounced by accused-Mere oral assertion of complainant and other eye-witnesses that accused had divorced his wife, but accused denying having divorced the lady and claiming her to be still his wife-Held, conduct of deceased contracting second marriage when accused was absent and was serving out sentence in jail was surely provoking factor which inter alia was extenuating circumstance which mitigate offence-Mere fact that deceased contracted second marriage without being formally divorced by accused would…
🔒
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