| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1944 2008 SLD 1944 2008 PLD 115 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions Nos. 21-K and 22-K of 2006, decision dated: 17-05-2006. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 9-3-2006 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in ATAs. Nos.28 and 39 of 2002)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ
Muhammad Ashraf Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.G. Sindh for the State
Criminal Petitions Nos. 21-K and 22-K of 2006, decision dated: 17-05-2006. (On appeal from the judgment/order dated 9-3-2006 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in ATAs. Nos.28 and 39 of 2002)
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, JJ
Muhammad Ashraf Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Suleman Habibullah, Advocate-on-Record. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, Addl. A.G. Sindh for the State
MUHAMMAD TALHA HUSSAIN alias NOMAN and anothers
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code(XLV of 1860)------S. 302(b)/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(i)(a)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Prosecution evidence was fully supported by medical evidence---Wife and son of the deceased had testified the truthfulness of the statement of the driver of the deceased, who had immediately disclosed the version to the inmates of the house that two persons had fired and their third companion came on the motorcycle, on which they had fled away---Presence of the driver of the deceased at the place of incident, thus, could not be discarded---Said driver of the deceased had identified the accused in the identification parade in the presence of Judicial Magistrate, describing the roles played by them at the time of commission of the offence---Ballistic Expert report had shown that the crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence had been fired from the pistol recovered from the possession of accused used by him in the commission of the offence---Recovery of incriminating crime weapon could, therefore, be used against the accused as one of the important piece of evidence to establish the guilt---Accused had undoubtedly retracted their confession, but the same could be relied upon, because the events disclosed by all of them for the purpose of commission of the crime in their confessional statements including the manner adopted by them to leave for the house of the deceased etc., was fully corroborated by prosecution evidence available on record-Accused had also disclosed the motive of killing the deceased for sectarian reason, which indicated that their confession was voluntary and true and the same could not be discarded for the sole reason of having been recorded after a delay of ten days in view of the facts and circumstances of the case---Impugned being unexceptionable called for no interference---Leave to appeal was declined to accused in circumstances. Hamid Javed v State 1988 SCMR 39 ref. Muhammad Yaqoob v. State 1992 SCMR 1983, Muhammad Ismail v. State 1995 SCMR 1615; Khan Muhammad v. State 1999 SCMR 1818; Ahmed Hassan v. The State 2001 SCMR 505 and State v.…
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