| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2003 SLG 3947 2003 SLD 3947 2003 PLD 662 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 416 and 447 of 2002, Dated: 4th March, 2003. heard on: 4th March, 2003.
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE HAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JUSTICE
Malik M. Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.416 of 2002). Nemo for the
Respondent/State (in Cr.P.No.416 of 2002). Tariq Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court, Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Su
Criminal Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos. 416 and 447 of 2002, Dated: 4th March, 2003. heard on: 4th March, 2003.
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE HAMID ALI MIRZA, JUSTICE AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, JUSTICE
Malik M. Nawaz Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner (in Cr.P. No.416 of 2002). Nemo for the
Respondent/State (in Cr.P.No.416 of 2002). Tariq Khokhar, Advocate Supreme Court, Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate Su
ABDUR RAHIM ALIAS RAHIMA AND others
VS
THE STATE AND others
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.----S. 302/34---.---Reappraisal of evidence ---.---F.I.R. was promptly lodged--¬Ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses had remained sufficiently constant---.---No material discrepancy could be brought on record during fairly lengthy cross-examination---.---Testimonies were fully supported by the medico legal and post-mortem reports in addition to the recovery of two empties and the motive involved---.---Motive was admitted by both the accused in their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C.---.---Prosecution witnesses had no enmity whatsoever with the accused---.---Charge brought about by the eye-witnesses had been extremely natural---.---Being a broad daylight occurrence and patties known to each other, identity could not be mistaken---.---Blackening of the wound supported the fact as mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused had fired at the deceased from close distance---.---Court witnesses called at the instance of the accused and one of them was the persons who happened to be the one who took the deceased to the hospital he had not been able to shatter the case of the prosecution and to support the case of the accused---.---Court witness who took the deceased to the hospital had stated that the deceased before his death in the hospital told the Investigating Officer on a question that it was the accused who was responsible for his death which tantamount to oral dying declaration by the deceased which proved the fact that deceased was done to death by the accused ---.---Co-accused, as per record was never attributed any overt act leading to the act of killing and was not armed--¬Mere Lalkara was attributed to the co-accused which was not a commanding one because to whom it was made was his own uncle---.---Co-accused, in circumstances was rightly extended the benefit of doubt qua the act of murder---.---Commission of murder of the deceased in the first degree by the accused had, fully been proved by the prosecution---.---Accused had committed the murder in cold blood and repeated the shots from a close range sparing no chances of his survival---.---Accused, in circumstances, was rightly awarded death sentence while his…
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