Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 407 1995 SLD 407 1995 SCMR 1668
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1993, decided on 30th May, 1995.
SALEEM AKHTAR, SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Dr. Khalid Ranjha; Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate on Record for the Complainant. Gulzar Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court for the State.

ZULFIQAR alias BHUTTO --Appellant

VS

THE STATE --Respondents

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)   S. 302 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3) Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contention that the Courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective resulting in miscarriage of justice and that it was an undoubted fact that there was enmity between the parties and in that view of the matter the uncorroborated testimony of relation cum inimical witnesses was not sufficient to warrant the conviction.  (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)   S. 302 Appreciation of evidence Eye witnesses were closely related and had enmity with the family of the accused Effect Testimony of such witnesses was fully corroborated by the fad that they took the deceased to the hospital immediately and within no time the statement was recorded and report was lodged Medical evidence as regards bringing deceased at the hospital in injured condition by one of such witnesses, the time at which he was brought over there, time of death and duration between injuries and death stated to be two hours corroborated the testimony of the witnesses Mere fact that eye witnesses were closely related and had enmity with the family of accused, held, was not sufficient to discard their evidence in circumstances.  (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)   S. 302 Appreciation of evidence Evidence of eye witnesses was consistent and their presence at the place of incident was not unnatural Fact that one of the eye witnesses had stated that they remained standing while the other said that they tried to catch the accused, held, was not a contradiction of such material nature which could affect the very root of the prosecution case or might discredit the testimony of the witnesses Such minor varying statements of the incident thus could not be treated as contradiction to affect the veracity of the prosecution witnesses.  (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)   S. 302 Sentence Mitigating circumstances Tender age of accused ¬Effect Merely because the accused was of tender age would not mean that he should not be given capital punishment: [Age].  Din Muhammad v. The State 1985 SCMR 625; Abdullah v. Shaukat 1988…
🔒
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