| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 2682 2006 SLD 2682 2006 SCMR 1387 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No.141 of 2005, decision dated: 17-04-2006 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-6-2005 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2000 and Murder Reference No.573 of 2000)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Jail Petition No.141 of 2005, decision dated: 17-04-2006 (On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-6-2005 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2000 and Murder Reference No.573 of 2000)
SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
SULTAN MEHMOOD
VS
THE STATE -
Law:
Section:
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302, 324/337-F(i) & 337-F(iii)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Reappraisal of evidence---Principles---Occurrence had taken place in the residential house of the complainant (wife of the accused); son-in-law and two sons of the lady were living with her in that very house; presence of all the four persons on the spot was most natural phenomena and hence the three eye-witnesses were the natural witnesses of the murder of one of the complainant's son by her husband; son and son-in-law of the complainant were provably injured by pallets from a .12 bore shotgun, being injured witnesses, their presence was all the more fortified; prosecution had examined all the three eye-witnesses against the accused; witnesses had been consistent throughout in supporting the facts having already been narrated in the F.I.R. which, in the given circumstances, was the most promptly lodged report; any chances of false involvement, concoctions and deliberations were altogether excluded; testimony of witnesses could not be shattered at all in the cross-examination; case of prosecution was squarely proved by the mere examination of as many as three eye-witnesses who were most natural and out of whom two were injured bearing the marks of occurrence on their person; testimony, the status and credibility of the eye-witnesses were such that it did not even need corroboration; no doubt witnesses were related to the complainant as well as the deceased but the accused carried the status of being the husband of complainant and stepfather of one witness and the stepfather-in-law of the other; but for the murder of the deceased there was no enmity whatsoever with the accused to the extent of involving him in an offence of capital charge; ocular testimony was fully supported by post-mortem report indicating pallet injuries on the front chest area of deceased, which was further supported by the medico-legal reports of the eye-witnesses who had sustained injuries that could well be caused by natural spread of pellets; distance involved between the assailant and the victims was again relevant in connection with the spread of pellets, seen in view of…
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