| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 594 2003 SLD 594 2003 SCMR 1230 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.507/L and 564/L, of 2002, decision dated: 21st April, 2003, hearing DATE ; 31st January, 2003
JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Sh. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No. 507/L of 2002) Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No. 564/1
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.507/L and 564/L, of 2002, decision dated: 21st April, 2003, hearing DATE ; 31st January, 2003
JAVED IQBAL, TANVIR AHMED KHAN AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, JJ
Sh. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No. 507/L of 2002) Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No. 564/1
HASHMAT ULLAH and anothers
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----S. 302(b)/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Appraisal of evidence---Broad daylight occurrence of which F.I.R. was recorded with promptitude describing all the details leading to the murder---Both the accused had absconded after the occurrence and were declared proclaimed offenders---Both the accused, were apprehended after a long period of time after the occurrence; one of them led to the recovery of incriminating gun alongwith live cartridges while the other was arrested with incriminating weapon ---Post-mortem of the deceased showed that he sustained six injuries having different number of wounds---Ocular account had been established in its material particulars---Both the eyewitnesses had successfully established their presence at the place of occurrence, one witness though a brother of the deceased but his testimony could not be discarded simply because of his relationship if it otherwise inspired confidence---Said witness had specifically attributed the injuries caused to the deceased by the accused and had established his presence at the spot---Defence side in spite of lengthy cross-examination had failed to shatter his testimony---Other eye-witness was a shopkeeper of the area of incident and was totally an independent witness and had no animus or malice whatsoever to implicate the accused persons and the defence side had failed to belie the confidence-inspiring statement of the said witness---Ocular version was completely in line with the medical evidence---Expecting from the witnesses that they would depose the ocular version with mathematical precision in such traumatic condition was too much---Accused had come to the spot on a motorcycle duly armed with lethal weapons with the intention to kill the deceased and did not take much time in accomplishing the fatal brutal act in broad daylight in presence of witnesses---Accused who were 39 years and 24 years of age at the time of commission of offence were not that much immature that they would easily succumb to the influence of a person who was not even present there---Accused being grown up persons having independent mind and thinking, caused the…
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