| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2008 SLG 1796 2008 SLD 1796 2008 SCMR 1228 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2005, decision dated: 6-05-2008.
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J., CH. EJAZ YOUSAF AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, JJ
Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the complainant. M. Siddique, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the St
Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2005, decision dated: 6-05-2008.
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J., CH. EJAZ YOUSAF AND MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, JJ
Sardar M. Latif Khan Khosa, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ch. Afrasiab Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for the complainant. M. Siddique, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the St
ABDUL MAJEED
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to reappraise evidence in its true perspective considering the fact that neither blood-stained earth nor empties were recovered from the place of incident. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)--- Reappraisal of evidence---Daylight occurrence---Repeating of fires---Description of fire shots, non-mentioning of---Blood¬stained earth---Complainant did not specify shots fired upon deceased by accused in F.I.R., nor it was mentioned therein that deceased received fires at such and such part of his body---Sentence of death awarded by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Narration by complainant was very natural and truthful, who could easily improve his statement by specifying number of shots and seat of injury but he did not do so---Statements of eye-witnesses could not be discarded for mere reason that blood stained earth was not collected by Investigating Officer---Case was that of single accused, occurrence took place when light was available and identity of assailant was not in question---Prosecution witnesses plausibly established their presence at the time of occurrence and their statements were fully supported by medical evidence and corroborated by circumstances of the case including lodging of F.I.R. promptly---Both the courts below rightly believed prosecution evidence as prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused---Accused waylaid the deceased and repeated fire at him which showed his intention---Any weakness in the motive would not come to the rescue of accused---Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by both the courts below---Appeal was dismissed. Syed Hamid Mukhtar shah v. Muhammad Azam and 2 others 2005 SCMR 427 rel. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ---S. 302---Defective investigation---Clothes of complainant were stained with blood while shifting deceased, which were not taken into possession by investigating officer---Effect---Such discrepancy reflected on the working and lethargy of Investigating Officer and it could not cause any harm…
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