PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ABDUL HAFEEZ alias MUMTAZ KALHORO vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 YLRN 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Parties
ABDUL HAFEEZ alias MUMTAZ KALHORO vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 7---Q

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

ABDUL HAFEEZ alias MUMTAZ KALHORO VS State Ss. 302, 387 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant on refusal for giving Bhatta---all the three eye-witnesses deposed against the accused with specific role of causing single fire shot from pistol upon the deceased at the clinic of a doctor where the deceased was working as compounder and the presence of the witness was established from their evidence---Evidence of all the three eye-witnesses was found to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring---all the three eye-witnesses were consistent on each and every point and were cross-examined by the defence but they were on one line and fully supported the case of prosecution---all three eye-witnesses knew accused, since it was a day light incident and all the eye-witnesses got a good look at the accused from close range---Eye-witnesses had correctly identified the accused especially as they had no reason to implicate him in a false case as there was no enmity between them---No identification parade was required with respect to that accused who was named and given a specific role in the FIR---No material contradiction was pointed out by the defence---Ocular evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses was further corroborated by the medical evidence and other circumstantial evidence---Eye-witnesses had sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence as well as each and every event of the occurrence---No substance had been brought on record by the accused to justify his false implication in the case at the hands of the complainant party on account of the previous enmity nor was the same suggested during cross-examination---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English