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

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1473 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Niaz vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1473 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 PCrLJ 1473 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1473 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Niaz vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal

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

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 1473 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Niaz VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not established---Accused were charged that they assaulted the complainant party, due to which nephew of the complainant died whereas another sustained injuries---Accused party also recorded cross version against the complainant party---Motive was stated to be money dispute between the parties---To substantiate the indictment, the prosecution produced the complainant and three other eye-witnesses, who furnished the ocular account---Complainant testified that on the fateful day at about 02:20 pm when they reached Gola Market after offering prayer they were confronted with accused party armed with TT Pistols three accused with knives and danda, whereas two nominated accused and unknown persons also armed with dandas made murderous assault upon them, whereby his nephew died due to firing, whereas the rest received severe injuries---Other three eye-witnesses testified in line with the deposition made by complainant, but none of them attributed any specific role with TT Pistol, knives and dandas---Said witnesses also did not mention that which accused caused what particular injury and to whom---Although the said witnesses while furnishing the ocular account had stated that five accused persons made firing, but none of them had specifically mentioned as to who caused the fatal injury---Moreso such account also did not coincide with the medical evidence as the deceased received only one gunshot wound, so it was impossible to determine that amongst them who caused fire shot injury to the deceased---Appeals against conviction were allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ

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