| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 1490 2001 SLD 1490 2001 SCMR 1363 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2000, decision dated: 21st February, 2001
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, RANA BIRAGWAN DAS AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State
Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2000, decision dated: 21st February, 2001
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, RANA BIRAGWAN DAS AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State
NOOR ELAHI alias KALA
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.302Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to accused to reappraise the evidence on record for safe administration of criminal justice. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S.302Appraisal of evidenceSentenceOcular evidence was worthy of credence having been corroborated by the established motive and independent evidence of unimpeachable integrity in the shape of recovery of incriminating articles and positive report of the FireArms ExpertCrime empties secured from the place of incident had been sent to the FireArms Expert much before the recovery of the gun on the pointation of the accused which was even not retained by the police for a long periodEvidence of the complainant could not be brushed aside merely on the ground of his belated medical examination injury sustained by the complainant had been mentioned in the promptly lodged F.I.R., duration of which as worked out by the Doctor, had coincided with the time of occurrencePresence of the complainant on the spot at the relevant time could be conveniently and safely inferred from the promptly lodged F. I. R. Conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence had vanished after the acquittal of coaccusedImprovement regarding the point of impact of firing made by the accused was too trivial to, destroy the prosecution caseContention about the testimony of the eyewitnesses having been disbelieved qua majority of the accused persons was not sustainable qua the accused as it negated the well settled principle of evaluation of evidence i.e., "sifting grain from chaff" which had replaced the discarded principle "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus "Conviction of accused was upheld in circumstancesAccused, however, who was 20 years of age on the day of occurrence was obsessed, according to prosecution evidence, with the idea of avenging the murder of his mother, which was not a rare phenomenon and his obsession had been aggravated by the influence of his father and elder brother who had been acquitted by the High CourtSentence of death awarded to accused was altered to imprisonment for life with benefit of S. 382B, Cr.P.C. 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