NASIR AHMED vs State S — 2023 SCMR 478 SUPREME-COURT

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

NASIR AHMED VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Incident took place at 10.00 a.m. in the morning whereas the matter was reported to the police at 10:30 a.m. on the same day while the inter se distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was six kilometer---Such aspect clearly reflected that the matter was reported to Police promptly without there being any delay---As the occurrence has taken place in the broad daylight and the parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of misidentification---Ocular account was furnished by the complainant and another witness, who were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record---Complainant was inmate of the house where the occurrence took place, therefore, his presence was natural---So far as the presence of the other witness was concerned, it was admitted position that at the relevant time, the wedding ceremony of the deceased lady was taking place and he being a close relative had come to complainant's house to attend the ceremony---Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the person of the deceased was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not point out any reason as to why the complainant would falsely involved the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---Complainant would not prefer to spare the real culprit who murdered his daughter and falsely involve the accused, who was his son-in-law and maternal nephew, without any reason---Neither the defence seriously disputed the motive part of the prosecution story nor the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on this aspect of the matter---Admittedly, the accused remained absconder for a period of about six months and the same was also a corroboratory piece of evidence against him---Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, even if the recovery of weapon of offence was excluded from consideration, still there was ample evidence in the form of unimpeachable and trustworthy ocular account, medical evidence and motive to sustain conviction of the accused on the capital charge---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, leave was refused and death sentence awarded to the accused was maintained.

NASIR AHMED vs State S — 2023 SCMR 478 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR