| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2609 2004 SLD 2609 2004 PLD 554 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1368 of 1999, 900, 923 of 2002, Criminal Revision No. 1032 of 2002 and Murder References Nos. 501-T of 1999 and 63-T of 2002, decided on 18th May, 2004. dates of hearing: 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th and 18th May, 2004
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, AND ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JJ
Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 1368 of 1999). Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2002). Mrs. Erum Sajjad Gul for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2002). Rana Naeem Sarwar for App
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1368 of 1999, 900, 923 of 2002, Criminal Revision No. 1032 of 2002 and Murder References Nos. 501-T of 1999 and 63-T of 2002, decided on 18th May, 2004. dates of hearing: 11th, 12th, 13th, 17th and 18th May, 2004
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, AND ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JJ
Syed Zahid Hussain Bukhari for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 1368 of 1999). Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2002). Mrs. Erum Sajjad Gul for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2002). Rana Naeem Sarwar for App
MUHAMMAD ALI and others
VS
THE STATE and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---------Ss. 302(b)/149, 324/149, 337-F(v)/149 337-L(2)/149 & 148---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Appreciation of evidence--Accused party on having received information about the murder of a member of their party by the complainant party, rushed to the "Dhari" in dispute and launched a concerted and premeditated attack upon the unarmed complainant party, not in exercise of right of private defence and not by way of a free fight, but by way of a vengeful retribution and retaliation---Occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight---F.I.R. had been lodged with reasonable promptitude with specific nomination of accused and attribution of definite roles to each of them therein ---Eyewitness had consistently deposed about the presence and participation of accused in the main occurrence---Availability of an injured-eyewitness at the spot at the relevant time was quite obvious---Motive set up by the prosecution revolving around the dispute between the parties over the "Dhari" had not been denied or controverted by the accused in their statements recorded under 5.342, Cr.P.C.---Medical evidence had supported the ocular testimony to great extent ---Abscondence of one accused had corroborated the prosecution case against him---Actual participation of accused in the occurrence with common object was, thus, established on record---Convictions and sentences of accused were upheld in circumstances with some alterations and modifications. Muhammad Amin v. The State 2002 SCMR 1017; Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 1445; Manzoor and others v. The State and others 1992 SCMR 2037; Sh. Muhammad Aslam v. Shaukat Ali alias Shauka 1997 SCMR 1307 and Ghulam Abbas v. Mazhar Abbas and another PLD 1991 SC 1059 ref. Bashir Ahmed v. The State and another 2004 SCMR 236 and Niaz Ahmad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 635 distinguished. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7 --- Crime and punishment---Offences under S.302, P.P.C. and Ss.6/7 of the Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, are quite distinct and separate from each other. Muhammad Amin v. The State 2002 SCMR 1017 ref.…
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