| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1166 2002 SLD 1166 2002 SCMR 391 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos.576 and 577 of 2000 and Jail Petition No.128 of 1999, decision dated: 26-09-2001
SH. RIAZ AHMED, SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Cr.P. No. 576 of 2000). Malik Jehanzab Taman, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Cr.P. No. 577 of 2000). M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in all Cases)
Criminal Appeals Nos.576 and 577 of 2000 and Jail Petition No.128 of 1999, decision dated: 26-09-2001
SH. RIAZ AHMED, SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Cr.P. No. 576 of 2000). Malik Jehanzab Taman, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in Cr.P. No. 577 of 2000). M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the State (in all Cases)
MUHAMMAD YASIN and 2 others
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Ss.302/34 & 394---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether the Trial Court and High Court had correctly assessed the evidence on record and had rightly rendered finding of guilt in view of the principles enunciated by Supreme Court for appraisal of evidence, and whether the High Court in the impugned was legally justified to convert the sentence of death of one accused into imprisonment for life. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss.302/34 & 394---Appraisal of evidence---Accused had committed robbery in the Bank in broad daylight in which one person lost his life and two persons received injuries---Accused had been apprehended after a chase given by the Police and the Bank Staff and the fire-arms as well as the robbed property were recovered from their possession---Eye-witness account furnished by the prosecution witnesses was natural and convincing and the defence was not able to prove any enmity, bias or ill-will against them--Reports of the Chemical Examiner, Serologist and. Forensic Science Laboratory had corroborated the ocular testimony---Well-reasoned impugned of High Court did not warrant any interference---Appeals were dismissed accordingly. Wallayat v. State 2002 SCMR 53 and Moazam Shah v. Mohsan Shah PLD 2001 SC 458 ref. (c) Criminal trial--- ---- Sentence---Where prosecution is able to prove its case against an accused beyond reasonable doubt, the maximum punishment provided for an offence should be awarded. Wallayat v. State 2002 SCMR 53 and Moazam Shah v. Mohsan Shah PLD 2001 SC 458 ref. (d) Criminal trial--- ---- Award of punishment---Guidelines. Leniency is being shown in matters of capital punishment by the Courts below even in those cases where act/crime involved was of heinous nature, which terrorized the society as a whole or a part thereof. No doubt, a Judge ought to be lenient and compassionate in awarding punishment in any offence but at the same time he should be more cautious in believing the prosecution story as it is narrated before him and efforts should not be trade to look for mitigating circumstances, creating doubt in…
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