GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 504 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act endanger human life and personal safety of other, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Contentions raised by defence that the witnesses were relatives of deceased and were interested, therefore, their evidence could not be relied upon, had no force---Although the witnesses were relatives of the deceased but they specifically deposed against the accused---During cross-examination it was also brought on record that the accused was also residing near the house of complainant party and the same had not been denied by the accused---Presence of complainant and the eye-witness at the place of wardat was also established from their evidence---No dent in the prosecution evidence which suggested that the accused was falsely involved in the commission of offence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 504 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act endangering human life and personal safety of other, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant/ father and brother of the deceased---Complainant deposed that accused persons came at his house and called them and informed them that they should accompany them for purchasing a buffalo---Complainant, deceased and his other son accompanied the accused persons, the accused persons led them towards forest area and they sit there under the chapra and after some time accused persons went by informing them that they were going to bring a buffalo but after some time both the accused armed with Kalashnikov returned back along with two more accused persons but had not brought the buffalo---Accused informed them that they had cheated them by bringing there in the forest area as they wanted to kill his son---Unknown persons stood guard upon them whereas accused caught hold his son and other accused caused fire arm injuries to his son and accused also robbed Rs. 25,000/- from son of complainant and all the accused persons ran away---Eye-witness/ brother of deceased stated the same story as deposed by the complainant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 504 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act endanger human life and personal safety of other, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Non-recovery of crime weapon---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Defence objected that crime weapon allegedly used by the accused at the time of offence was not recovered from him, therefore, the accused could not be connected with the murder of deceased---Said stance had no force in view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of prosecution by deposing that the accused had directly fired from the Kalashnikov which hit the deceased---Direct evidence of eye-witnesses was further corroborated by medical evidence as the doctor who examined the deceased had found firearm injuries on his person---Where charge was proved by other direct, natural and confidence inspiring evidence, then non-recovery of crime weapon was not fatal to prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused--- Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 504 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act endanger human life and personal safety of other, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Non-recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Defence raised objection that empties were not recovered from the place of wardat which might connect the accused with the commission of the offence had no force as no weapon was recovered from the accused because accused remained absconder, therefore there was no chance that said empties ought to be sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for matching with the weapon---In the present case the occurrence had taken place in the broad daylight and there was no chance of any misidentification---All the said factors when evaluated conjointly it was abundantly clear that the prosecution had succeeded to establish the case without any reasonable doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 504 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act endangering human life and personal safety of other, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Medical Officer, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, had deposed that from external and internal examination of the dead body of deceased, he was of the opinion that the death of deceased had occurred due to injuries on vital organ of the body which were caused by firearm---Said witness was cross-examined by the defence but nothing favourable to accused was found---Prosecution had proved its case in respect of the unnatural death of deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO VS State Witness--- Minor contradictions---Scope---Where, in the evidence, prosecution established its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt there were some minor contradictions which always were in each and every case the same might be ignored.

GHULAM SARWAR GHANGRO vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1368 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR