| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 496 1999 SLD 496 1999 SCMR 2389 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1994, decision dated: 26-05-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-5-1993 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 1991). dates of hearing. 2nd and 3rd of April, 1998
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Anwar Raza, Advocate Supreme Court with Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for
Criminal Appeal No.77 of 1994, decision dated: 26-05-1998. (On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-5-1993 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1102 of 1991). dates of hearing. 2nd and 3rd of April, 1998
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Anwar Raza, Advocate Supreme Court with Rao M. Yousaf Khan, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for the State. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for
AHMAD and 5 others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--Ss. 302/149, 307/149 & 148---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Eye-witnesses had claimed to see the occurrence from a distance of 92 feet which had taken place at 2-30 a.m. at night---Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the principles governing appraisal of evidence as laid down by Supreme Court had been followed by the Courts below. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302/149, 307/149 & 148---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185--Appraisal of evidence---Sentence---Occurrence having taken place inside the house of the complainant and the accused being already known to prosecution witnesses, they could be easily identified by the witnesses---Accused had a very strong motive to commit the murder as the parties had a deep-rooted enmity which did not dwindle by lapse of time, but was very much fresh and alive--Medical evidence was in line with the ocular testimony which inspired confidence---Prompt lodging of F.I.R. had not only eliminated the possibility of false implication of accused, but had also corroborated the prosecution story--- Accused had acted cruelly and ruthlessly and did not deserve any leniency in matter of sentence---Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances. Noora v. Gulzar PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 395; Ibrahim v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 1784; Ibrahim v. The State 1969 SCMR 773; Khalil Ahmad v. The State 1976 SCMR 161; Shahzado v. The State PLD 1977 SC 413; Allah Rakhio v. The State 1977 SCMR 347; Amanulah v. The State PLD 1978 Kar. 792; Jalal v. Nazir Ahmad 1980 SCMR 320; Ali Sher v. The State PLD 1980 SC 317; Ghulam Hussain v. The State 1984 PCr.Lâ-ž1 1807; Fozail Merchant v. The State PLD 1994 SC 842; Muhammad Arshad v. The State PLD 1995 SC 475 and Tailor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, Vol.-I, p: 239 ref. JUDGMENT RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---During the night between 13th and 14th of September, 1990 at 4.00 a.m., a case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. was registered on the statement of Amir with police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha against Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Azam, Muhammad Akbar, Sher Muhammad, Shamsher, Muhammad…
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