Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 1464 2007 SLD 1464 2007 SCMR 1639
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No.217 of 2006, decision dated: 29-05-2007
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND FALAK SHER, JJ
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Ch. Munir Sadiq, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State

NAIK MUHAMMAD alias NAIKA and anothers

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Reappraisal of evidence---Interested witnesses---Accused were convicted and sentenced to death---High Court maintained the conviction but converted death penalty into imprisonment for life---Plea raised by accused was that prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses as they were closely related to deceased---Validity---Supreme Court did not find any illegality, misreading or non-appreciation of prosecution version which, otherwise, was convincing and truthful---Ocular evidence furnished by prosecution witnesses was found to be creditworthy by Trial Court as well as by High Court---No inherent defect or material lacuna was found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses whose presence at the site had been established beyond any shadow of doubt---Both prosecution witnesses were closely related to deceased but fact of the matter remained that mere relationship of witnesses with deceased per se would not render them interested or partisan witnesses---Prosecution had proved guilt of accused by strong motive, ocular reliable testimony coupled with corroborative medico legal opinion and recovery of crime weapons---Supreme Court declined to subscribe to the contention of accused that there was conflict between ocular and medical evidence and refused to interfere with conviction and sentence passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Reappraisal of evidence---Witness---Prosecution witnesses were closely related to deceased---Mere relationship of witnesses with deceased per se would not render them interested or parisan witnesses . (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Fatal shot---Determination---Both the accused were convicted and sentenced to death penalty but High Court altered the sentence into imprisonment for life---Validity---Main ground which weighed with the High Court as extenuating circumstance to reduce sentence was that though one shot was attributed to each accused but which of the shots was fatal, was not ascertainable from the medical…
🔒
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