Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 4098 2007 SLD 4098 2007 PLD 77
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2005, decided on 15th February, 2007. heard on: 29th November, 2006.
MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND KHAWAJA SHAHAD AHMED, JUSTICE
Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate for Appellants. Raja Mazhar Iqbal, Advocate for
Respondent No.1. Riaz Navid Butt, Additional Advocate-General for the State.

ABDUL REHMAN AND another

VS

MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ ALIAS MAKHA AND another

Law:

Section:

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985---.--- ---.----S. 17(4)---.---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.341 & 392---.---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---.---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), 42---.---Appeal against of Shariat Court---.---Appreciation of evidence---.---Appeal had been directed against of Shariat Court whereby death sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court was set aside and instead sentence of ten years' R.I. was awarded---.---Validity---.---Shariat Court had not gone through the evidence minutely and had wrongly interpreted the evidence; Court had ignored the site plan which could be referred for determining the respective positions of accused, deceased and the witnesses and also place from where witnesses had witnessed the occurrence---.---Court, while appreciating evidence of eye-witnesses, had also to keep in mind the site plan for forming any opinion about particular eye-witness---.---Shariat Court had not appreciated evidence while keeping in view positions of prosecution witnesses incorporated in site plan---.---Shariat Court, in circumstances had wrongly discarded evidence of said prosecution witnesses---.---Shariat Court, despite holding that evidence as required under S.7 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 was not available, had awarded sentence of 10 years' R.I. under S.392, P.P.C.---.---Judgment of Shariat Court was self-contradictory which was not based on any solid and cogent reason---.---Report of Fire-arm Expert was that empty recovered from the place of occurrence was tired from 222 bore gun recovered at the instance of accused---.---Post-mortem report also had corroborated the version of prosecution, but Shariat Court had not considered that evidence---.---Court's fundamental duty was that while dealing with a murder case, it should sift the grain from the chaff---.---Version narrated in the F.1.R. and the statements of five eye-witnesses found corroboration from post-mortem report---.---No contradiction existed in the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding time and place ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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