| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 426 2005 SLD 426 2005 SCMR 1054 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr.Ps. Nos.787, 791, 797 and 803-L of 2001, decision dated: 11-06-2003. (On appeal from the judgment dated 26-10-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos.433 and 459 of 1998 and Criminal Revision No.215 of 1998)
KHALILURREHMAN RAMDAY, FALAK SHER KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.787, 797 and 803L of 2001). Masood-ur-Rehman Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent (Sajid Ullah) (for Petitioner in C.P. No. 791L of 200
Cr.Ps. Nos.787, 791, 797 and 803-L of 2001, decision dated: 11-06-2003. (On appeal from the judgment dated 26-10-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeals Nos.433 and 459 of 1998 and Criminal Revision No.215 of 1998)
KHALILURREHMAN RAMDAY, FALAK SHER KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, JJ
M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.787, 797 and 803L of 2001). Masood-ur-Rehman Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent (Sajid Ullah) (for Petitioner in C.P. No. 791L of 200
GHULAM SARWAR and others
VS
SAJID ULLAH and others--Respondents
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b),34
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 302(b)/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was natural and believable---Eye-witnesses had no reason or motive to falsely implicate the accused in the occurrence---Parties being closely related to each other, question of mistaken identity of accused did not arise--Ocular testimony was corroborated by medical evidence---Leave to appeal was refused to accused in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Enhancement of sentence---Accused was found entitled to lesser penalty of imprisonment for life because of young age and because of the insult offered to his father by the deceased---Discretion exercised by High Court was neither arbitrary nor whimsical and the same warranted no interference---Leave to appeal was refused to complainant accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)----- ----S. 302(b)/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal---Accused had been acquitted by High Court on the ground that medical evidence did not support the eye-witness account to the extent of injuries ascribed to him which was borne by record--Possibility of the accused having been dragged into the case on account of being a brother of the principal accused could not be ruled out--Benefit of doubt extended to accused by High Court was not exceptionable---Leave to appeal was declined to complainant accordingly. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Appeal against acquittal---Accused was the father of the other three accused and he was empty-handed at the time of occurrence and had not caused any injury to any body---Role attributed to co-accused was that at his instance his father and his two brothers had committed the crime---Said accused was not even present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---No evidence worth any credit was led to establish that the deceased had been murdered at the instance of accused---Acquittal recorded in favour of both the accused by the Trial Court and…
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