| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 1110 2003 SLD 1110 2003 PCRLJ 523 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 101/J of 2002 and Murder Reference No. 44/T of 2001, heard on 3rd July, 2002.
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JJ
Ms. SadiqaIltaf Khan for Appellant (on State expense). S.D. Qureshi for the State. Wasi Zafar for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 101/J of 2002 and Murder Reference No. 44/T of 2001, heard on 3rd July, 2002.
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, JJ
Ms. SadiqaIltaf Khan for Appellant (on State expense). S.D. Qureshi for the State. Wasi Zafar for the Complainant.
MUZAFFAR IQBAL--Appellant
VS
THE STATE --Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b),324,109
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7(3)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302(b), 324 109 Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(3) Appreciation of evidence Occurrence had taken place in chamber of an Advocate and deceased was clerk of the said Advocate ¬Complainant who was son of deceased was junior of the said Advocate Both Advocate and complainant who were natural eye witnesses made consistent statements on all material particulars Another eye witness who was petition writer and was working in the Court premises, was also present in the chamber in question when occurrence took place All said witnesses were consistent as to what happened and in what manner it happened Ocular account and arrest of accused as the spot was further corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of pistol Pistol alongwith empties was sent to Forensic Science Expert and report received from him was positive and pistol stood connected with the crime Motive part of prosecution story was not only proved by prosecution witness, but was admitted even by accused in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr. P.C. Defence plea of accused that he had been falsely implicated on account of strained relations between him and his wife who was daughter of deceased was not tenable firstly because complainant party had taken recourse to legal proceedings by filing suit for maintenance against accused which was pending decision before Court of competent jurisdiction; secondly ocular account of prosecution case was furnished by independent witnesses who were neither related to complainant party nor they had any enmity with accused to falsely implicate him; thirdly arrest of accused at the spot had ruled out any chance of mistaken identity or substitution Prosecution case against accused had fully been proved, in circumstances Accused who came to the spot armed with a pistol and was dare devil enough to fire at deceased in the Court premises in busy hours, had acted in a calculated and desperate manner by repeating fire even on prosecution witness ¬Such desperate disposition leading to occurrence which stood proved beyond reasonable doubt, would not entitle him for any lesser sentence ¬Sentence of death awarded to accused by…
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