Find a Lawyer

AMI AD SHAH versus THE STATE

ections Sections 302 (b) and 34 - I am in custody, joint intention -! Evidence of the deceased's post-mortem was deceased within fifty minutes of his death, and the FIR was also immediately filed on the hour of the deceased's death, which lasted for debate or alternatives. Presence dismissed - no previous rivalry between complainant and accused parties alleges that medical evidence completely confirmed the account of the accusation - that the alleged murder effectively and decisively served the purpose of murder. The same fire was fired on the late forehead of both - the perpetrator of the murder charge was upheld - partial appeal allowed, according to [pp. isi} is77 A&G

P L D 2017 Supreme Court 152

Present: Amir Hani Muslim, Umar Ata Bandial and Khilji Arif Hussain, JJ

AMI AD SHAH—Appellant

versus

THE STATE—Respondent

Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2010, decided on 1st February, 2016.

(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 4-2-2009 passerby Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Cr.As. Nos.351, of 2002).

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

—Ss. 302(b) & 34—Qatl-i-amd, common intention— evidence—Postmortem of the deceased was conducted within fifty minutes of his death—FIR was also promptly lodged within on the hour and ten (10) minutes of death of deceased, which excluded previous availability of time for deliberations or substitution—No previous enmity was alleged between the complainant and accused parties Medical evidence fully corroborated the ocular account—Accuse fired a single fire shot on the forehead of the deceased both effectively and decisively in achieving the object of murder— Conviction accused for murder was maintained in circumstances—Appeal partly allowed accordingly, [pp. isi} is77 A & G

(b) Penal Code (XLV of I860)—

Amjad Shah v. State (Umar Ata Bandial, J)

was attributed volunteer in the occurrence and not a party to firing the complainant and accused party friction between therefore was not known; its

the occurrence, incomprehensible-intention, guilty mind was vague commit the offence remained shrouded ...

mative mystery and was evidence that could fairly explain the immediate had withheld evidence oof death awarded to accused was

(d) Penal Code (XLV of I860)-

302(b)—Qatl-i-amd—Sentence, toward excitement

circumstances—Age of accused— Youthful as a mitigating circumstance.

and impulsiveness were treated by

Qadeer Ahmed Rana, Advocate Supreme Court, for Appellant.

Ahmed Raza Gillani, Addl. PG for the State.

Date of hearing: 1st February, 2016.

top advocate from Bhara Kahu lawyer