| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1986 SLG 874 1986 SLD 874 1986 SCMR 1410 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1984, decision dated: 18-03-1986. (On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 29-06-1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 158/82 Criminal Revision No.112/82).
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Sh. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. M. Bilal for Advocate-General (Punjab) and Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 1984, decision dated: 18-03-1986. (On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 29-06-1983 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 158/82 Criminal Revision No.112/82).
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J., NASIM HASAN SHAH, SHAFIUR RAHMAN AND MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, JJ
Sh. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. M. Bilal for Advocate-General (Punjab) and Rao M. Yusuf Khan, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
TARIQ SALIM and another
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-----Art. 185 (3)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34--Leave to appeal granted to consider that complainant had a motive to implicate accused/ appellants so much so that he had also introduced another person as an eye-witness who was not examined and was given up by prosecution without assigning any reason; High Court did not attach due weight to the prevarications of witnesses in advancing time of occurrence from Peshi-vela to Degar-vela as it did not fit in with probable time of death of deceased whose stomach, on post-mortem examination was found containing fully digested food; that all injuries on deceased could not be caused while deceased was sitting as alleged by eye-witnesses; that complainant himself did not support F.I.R. at trial and had improved upon his earlier version and two eye-witnesses supported him which rendered their testimony questionable; that two witnesses of recovery of blood-stained hatchets were not independent witnesses as held by High Court that High Court wrongly accepted recoveries despite fact that evidence pertaining to it was not free from doubt; and that two accused /appellants had not initiated proceedings relating to abduction of a lady and in fact report was lodged by her husband. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302/34--Appeal against conviction--Contentions raised having been satisfactorily answered by Trial Court as well as High Court in elaborate and detailed manner--Examination of some important factors of case showing that Courts below had made fair and impartial appraisal of evidence--Appeal dismissed. JUDGMENT MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--The accused /appellants, along with Abdur Rahman (acquitted accused), were tried under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock for committing the murder of Mumraiz Khan by inflicting hatchet blows, and all the three were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 each, in default to suffer R.I. for further two years each, and were also ordered to pay Rs.5,000 each to the heirs of the deceased or in default of the payment, each of them shall undergo further R.I. for…
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