| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5092 = 2025 SLD 5092 = 2025 PLJ 49 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Crl. A. No. 1452 & M.R. No. 151 of 2019
Presented By: Sadaqat Ali Khan and Shehram Sarwar Ch., JJ.
M/s. James Joseph and Khawaja Qaiser Butt Advocates for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Rana Muhammad Nadeem Kanju and Syed Tahir Mansoor Bukhari, Advocates for Complainant. Date of hearing: 19.9.2024.
Crl. A. No. 1452 & M.R. No. 151 of 2019
Presented By: Sadaqat Ali Khan and Shehram Sarwar Ch., JJ.
M/s. James Joseph and Khawaja Qaiser Butt Advocates for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Addl. Prosecutor General for State. Rana Muhammad Nadeem Kanju and Syed Tahir Mansoor Bukhari, Advocates for Complainant. Date of hearing: 19.9.2024.
MUHAMMAD ZOHAIB--Appellant
VERSUS
STATE--Respondent
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860
Section: 302/324/34
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----S. 302/324/34--Qatl-i-Amd--Promptly lodged FIR--Day light occurrence--PW’s residing in the same area--Minor discrepancies--Ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence--Recovery of 30-bore pistol--Report of PFSA is positive--Mitigating circumstances--Death sentence converted into life imprisonment--Unfortunate incident wherein grandson of complainant was done to death--Matter was reported to the police through statement about forty five minutes after the occurrence--With due promptitude which rules of the chances of fabrication and concoction on the part of complainant--Both the eye-witnesses were resident of the same area where the incident took place, therefore, their presence on the spot at the time of incident is quite natural and probable--The discrepancies in the statements of the PWs pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellant, are minor and general in nature, occur in every case when witnesses are cross examined after a long time of the occurrence are not fatal to the prosecution--Ocular account is fully supported by medical evidence--Recovery of 30-bore pistol at the instance of the appellant--Report of PFSA is positive--Brother of deceased was material witness of motive but he was not produced by the prosecution during the trial--No independent witness qua motive was produced during investigation or brought in the witness box during the course of trial--Prosecution’s failure to prove motive would constitute a mitigating circumstance--The appellant did not opt to appear as his own witness in disproof of the prosecution allegations as provided under section 340(2) Cr.P.C--There is sufficient incriminating evidence on the record against the appellant in the form of straightforward and confidence inspiring ocular account--While maintaining the conviction under section 302(b) PPC, we alter the sentence from death to imprisonment for life--Appeal dismissed. [Para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 12] A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K & M Motive-- ----Prosecution’s failure to prove motive would constitute a…