2024 M L D 246
[Sindh (Sukkur Bench)]
Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J
ZAHOOR AHMED---Appellant
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. S-60 of 2020, decided on 20th May, 2022.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 393, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit robbery, robbery, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence--- Ocular account furnished by eye-witness believable---Accused were charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant during robbery and also caused firearm injury to his cousin---Prosecution in order to prove its case had examined complainant, who was eye-witness of the incident and narrated the whole story of the case---Evidence of complainant was corroborated by another eye-witness, who narrated the same facts as stated by the complainant---Said eye-witness fully supported the case in respect of date, time and manner in which incident took place including the identity of the accused---Eye-witness was cross-examined by the defence and during cross-examination stated that the accused was residing about 2/3 kilometers away from the village of complainant party---In respect of identity at night time on question of the defence witness, eye-witness stated that the bulb was fixed in the Chapra where he along with other witnesses were sleeping on cots and accused were identified by them at a distance of 10/12 feet---No major contradiction appeared in the evidence of said witness and his evidence was reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring---No enmity whatsoever had been suggested to such witness for false implication of the accused in the case---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
Farman Ahmed v. Muhammad Inayat and others 2007 SCMR 1825; Arshad Khan v. The State 2017 SCMR 564; Riaz Ahmed v. The State 2010 SCMR 846; Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh and another 1998 SCMR 570; Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Asif and others 2007 SCMR 1812; Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986; Sheral alias Sher Muhammad v. The State 1999 SCMR 697; Muhammad Rashid and another v. The State 2022 YLR 119; Nawab Ali v. The State 2014 PCr.LJ 885; Abdul Khalique v. The State 2020 SCMR 178; Muhammad Qasim alias Qasu and 3 others v. The State 2018 PCr.LJ 490; The State v. Noor Ahmad alias Thola and 3 others 1991 PCr.LJ 2007; Muhammad Tufail v. The State PLD 2002 SC 786 and Hameer v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1452 ref.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 393, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit robbery, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Weapon of offence and crime empties, recovery of---Reliance---Accused were charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant during robbery and also caused firearm injury to his cousin---Accused led the police in his house; an iron trunk was kept in one room on the eastern side of his house and he produced one .30 bore pistol before the Police Officer in their presence---Police Officer checked the pistol which gave smell of gun powder and it was found containing three live bullets of .30 bore---Recovery witnesses were cross-examined by the defence but their evidence was not shattered---One of the mashirs was also examined who deposed that in his presence dead body of deceased sister of complainant was inspected--- Place of incident was inspected in his presence wherefrom blood stained earth and four empties of .30 bore pistol were collected---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused by producing reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 393, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit robbery, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one day in lodging the FIR explained---Accused were charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant during robbery and also caused firearm injury to his cousin---Defence's objection that there was delay of about one day in registration of FIR, therefore the case was doubtful and its benefit must go to the accused, had no force as according to contents of FIR at the first instance complainant took the deceased and the injured to hospital for postmortem of deceased and treatment of the injured and they had been waiting for the parents of the deceased who had gone to meet with their son serving in army---On return of her parents and funeral rites the FIR was lodged, as such the delay, if any, in registration of the FIR was properly explained by the complainant---In such circumstance the delay, if any, occurring in the registration of FIR was not fatal to the case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
Abdul Khalique v. The State 2020 SCMR 178 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 393, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit robbery, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in recording the statement of witnesses by police---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant during robbery and also causing firearm injury to his cousin---Defence's objection that the statements of the witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., were recorded with delay and the prosecution failed to explain such delay which was fatal to the prosecution, had no force---Intentionally or otherwise any concession extended to the accused by the Investigating Agency would not to be termed fatal to its own case---Belated recording of statement of witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was no ground to brush aside the statement of such witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused by producing reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
Qaisar Hussain alias Kashi alias Kashif v. The State 2011 PCr.LJ 1126 rel.
(e) Criminal trial---
----Minor contradictions--- Scope--- Minor contradictions are not sufficient to create any serious doubt and the same can be ignored, which always are available in each and every case.
Zakir Khan v. The State 1995 SCMR 1793 rel.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302, 393, 394 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit robbery, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses, evidence of---Reliance---Accused were charged for committing murder of the sister of the complainant during robbery and also causing firearm injury to his cousin---There appeared two eye-witnesses of the incident, i.e. complainant and an eye-witness, who had fully supported the case against the accused by specifically deposing that the accused had directly fired upon the deceased from pistol which hit her---Both the witnesses remained consistent during the trial on all material particulars of the prosecution case in so far as the role attributed to the accused was concerned---Testimony of prosecution witnesses was corroborated by medical evidence, which was consistent with the ocular account in so far as the weapon, locale of injury and time which elapsed between the injury and post-mortem examination, were concerned---Although the witnesses were relatives of the deceased but they specifically narrated each and every aspect of the incident and their presence at the time of incident had been established beyond a reasonable doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused by producing reliable, trustworthy, and confidence-inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.
Nasir Iqbal alias Nasra and another v. The State 2016 SCMR 2152 rel.
Shamsuddin N. Kobhar for Appellant.
Rashid Ali Sindhu for the Complainant.
Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.
Comments
Post a Comment