2012 P Cr. L J 322
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, JJ
KHAN MUHAMMAD and another ---Appellants
Versus
THE STATE and another ---Respondents
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 50 of 2005 and Murder Reference No. 10 of 2005, decided on 15th
September, 2011.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337 -A(iv) & 337 -X---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl -e-amd, causing
Shajjah -i-Munaqqilah ---Appreciation of evidence ---Occurrence had taken place inside the house
and inmates of the house were the natural witnesses ---Material prosecution witnesses remained
consistent and had not been shaken during cross -examination ---Ocular evidence was fully
supported and corroborated by unchallenged medical evidence; and was further corroborated by
the recovery of Kalashnikov from possession of accused at the time of his a rrest, recovery of
empties, lead bullet and positive report of Fire Arms Expert ---Circumstantial evidence lent
further corroboration to the ocular testimony ---Relationship of a witness with any of the parties
would not discard his testimony as mere relatio nship of a witness was no ground for discarding
his evidence, if he otherwise appeared to be truthful and his presence at the place of occurrence
was established ---Recovery of Kalashnikov from the possession of accused at the time of his
arrest was fully s upported by prosecution witnesses; and the positive report of Fire Arms Expert
confirmed the fact that said Kalashnikov was used in the commission of the offence ---Accused
who was residing in the same house, being younger brother of deceased, there was no question of
mistaken identity ---Motive of occurrence which was a dispute of ancestral property, had not been
denied by accused ---Accused in a callous and brutal manner, had caused cold -blooded murder
of his real brother and his nephew and caused s erious injuries to his niece ---Prosecution
had proved the charge against accused under Ss.302, 324, P.P.C. upto the hilt and defence
had absolutely failed to cause any dent in the prosecution case ---Accused deserved no leniency
and no mitigating circumstances were available to award him lesser punishment ---Conviction
awarded to accused by the Trial Court vide impugned judgment was upheld, in circumstances.
Ijaz Ahmed v The State 2009 SCMR 99; Faisal Mehmood v The State 2010 SCMR 1025; Jawed
Malik v. The State 2005 SCMR 49; Hamid Mukhtiar v Muhammad Azam 2005 SCMR 427 and
Zahid Imran v. The State PLd 2006 SC 109 rel
(b) Criminal trial ---
----Sentence ---Court owed duty to the legal heirs/relations of the victim and also to the society,
sentenc es awarded be such, which should act as deterrent to the commission of the offence ---
Approach of the court should be dynamic and if the court was satisfied that the offence had been
committed in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, the technicalities should be overlooked
without causing any miscarriage of justice.
Kamran Murtaza for Appellant (in both Appeals)
Abdul Sattar Durrani, Additional P -G for the State (in both Appeals)
Khalid Ahmed Kubdani for the Complainant (in both Appeals)
Date of hearing: 8th September, 2011.
JUDGMENT
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, J. ---This appeal has been preferred by the appellant from
jail against the judgment dated 31 -5-2005, passed by learned Sessions Judge Mekran at
Turbat, whereby the appellant has bee n awarded conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. and
sentenced to death as Tazir subject to confirmation by this Court, to pay compensation of
Rs.200,000 to the legal heirs of each deceased and in default to undergo one year's RI. The
appellant has furthe r been convicted under section 324, P.P.C. and sentenced to ten years' R.I.
with fine of Rs.50,000 or in default to further undergo six months' R.I. The appellant is also
convicted under section 337 -A(iv), P.P.C. for Shujja -e-Munaqillah and sentenced to te n year's RI
as Tazir and to pay Rs.30,000 as Arsh to Mst. Gulshan or in default of payment of Arsh to be
dealt with under section 337 -X, P.P.C. with benefit of section 382 -B, Cr.P.C. The
appellant/convict has been ordered to be kept at Central Jail Mach to serve out the sentence.
Murder Reference No.10 of 2005 has been forwarded by learned Sessions Judge Mekran at
Turbat under section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence.
Facts of the prosecution case are that vide F.I.R. No.13 of 2004 dated 16 -4-2004, report has been
lodged by P.W.1 Muhammad Bakhsh under sections 302, 324, P.P.C. against the appellant/
convict reporting therein he is resident of Sherak, Turbat. At about 1 -00 p.m. he received
information on telephone that the appellant/convict h as murdered his elder brother Yar
Muhammad son of Ismail and Naveed son of Yar Muhammad by firing with Kalashnikov and
has caused injuries to Mst. Gulshan daughter of Yar Muhammad. On getting information
complainant P.W.1 Muhammad Bakhsh reached L evies Thana Turbat for lodging report.
After registration of F.I.R., Tehsildar along with Levies employees proceeded to the place of
incident, where the appellant/convict Khan Muhammad was present along with Kalashnikov,
magazine and 13 live cartridges. The appellant/convict was arrested and Kalashnikov with
magazine and live cartridges recovered from the possession of the appellant/convict was taken
into possession through recovery memo Exh.P/2 -A. Tehsildar took into possession blood -stained
shirt of d eceased Naveed, Yar Muhammad and injured Mst. Gulshan 12 empties of
Kalashnikov, led bullet, two blood -stained pieces of Darri (mat) and blood -stained mat were also
taken into possession. The dead bodies of Yar Muhammad and Naveed Ahmed were
brought to Basic Health Unit Saami for examination and report and the injured Mst.
Gulshan was taken to District Headquarter Hospital Turbat for examination and treatment. Site
map was prepared, statements of the witnesses were recorded, the recovere d Kalashnikov along
with empties were sent to the Ballistic Expert for analysis and after completion of investigation
incomplete challan Exh.P/9 -B was submitted on 4 -5-2004. On receiving report of Fire Arms
Expert, complete challan Exh.P/9 -F was submitted on 22 -6-2004.
After submission of challans, the appellant/ convict was put on trial before learned Sessions
Judge, Mekran at Turbat At the trial the appellant/convict denied the charge under section
302, 324, P.P.C. on 4 -9-2004. At the trial prosecu tion produced nine witnesses, whereafter, the
appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant/convict did not record his
statement on oath, nor produced any defence witness. After conclusion of the trial, the learned
trial Court awarded con viction to the appellant as mentioned above. The appellant/convict
challenged the conviction through jail appeal and learned Sessions Judge, forwarded murder
reference under section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence.
Subsequent to the f iling of the jail appeal, Mr. Kamran Murtaza Advocate filed power on behalf
of the appellant/convict. Learned counsel for the appellant/convict Mr. Kamran Murtaza
Advocate argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant/convi ct
beyond reasonable doubt. He further argued that the material witnesses are relatives of the
deceased and are inimical towards the appellant/ convict. He further argued that the statements of
independent witnesses were recorded after delay of one day wit hout any explanation.
On the other hand Mr. Abdul Sattar Durrani, learned Additional Prosecutor -General argued that
the inmates of the house are the natural witnesses of the occurrence, who have fully supported
the prosecution case. He further argued tha t the ocular evidence is supported and corroborated by
circumstantial evidence as well as by medical evidence, recovery of Kalashnikov and positive
report of Fire Arms Expert.
Mr. Khalid Ahmed Kubdani, Advocate, appearing on behalf of legal heirs of dece ased argued
that the prosecution case stands proved beyond any reasonable doubt and normal penalty of
death has rightly been awarded to the appellant/convict by the trial Court.
After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record
of the case in detail. Perusal of record reveals that P.W.1 Muhammad Bakhsh being complainant
is not the eye -witness of the occurrence, nor he has mentioned about the source of information of
the occurrence on telephone. However, at his instance F.I.R. No.13 of 2004, was registered with
Levies Thana Turbat. P.W.1 duly exhibited F.I.R. Exh.P/1 -A and identified his signatures upon
the same. According to P.W.1 he received information of the occurrence at 1 -00 p.m. and after
40 minutes he re ached Thana and after registration of F.I.R. he along with Levies personnel
reached at the place of occurrence at 4 -00 p.m.
P.W.2 Tariq Piada Levies, Tehsil Turbat, is witness to the arrest and recovery of Kalashnikov
(bearing No.19037776) with magazine and 13 live cartridges from the possession of the
appellant/convict vide recovery memo Exh.P/2 -A. P.W.2 is also witness to the recovery of
blood -stained clothes of the deceased as well as injured Mst. Gulshan and 12 -empties of
Kalashnikov, one lead bullet, two blood -stained pieces of Darri and blood -stained mat taken into
possession vide recovery memo Exh.P/2 -B. P.W.2 identified his signatures on the recovery
memos and also produced and identified all the articles produced before the court. According to
P.W.2 they reached at the spot at 3 -30 p.m. and the information was received at 2 -30 p.m.
During cross -examination P.W.2 confirmed that the occurrence took place within a boundary
wall. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that the appellant/convict was not present, n or arrested at the
spot and he was arrested from his house. P.W.2 also denied the suggestion that Kalashnikov etc.
were not recovered from the appellant/convict. P.W.2 confirmed during cross -examination that at
the time of arrest the appellant/convict was sitting and Kalashnikov was in his hand.
P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan, aged about 25 -years, daughter of deceased Yar Muhammad, is the injured
witness. According to her statement on 16 -4-2004 at about 1 -00 p.m. his father was in his room
and she along with her moth er Mst. Malook Khatoon P.W.5 and sister Mst. Asma were in
kitchen. In the meanwhile her brother Naveed Ahmed (deceased) also came there. Suddenly they
heard fire shots from the room of her father. They all came out of kitchen and saw that the
appellant/con vict was firing upon her father with Kalashnikov. Due to fear they all returned in
the kitchen. The appellant/convict Khan Muhammad was calling bad names to them and in the
meanwhile the appellant/convict also made firing upon them, due to which P.W.3 beca me
seriously injured and her brother Naveed also received injuries and succumbed to the injuries on
the spot. Her father also died on the spot. P.W.3 became unconscious due to injuries. P.W.3
identified the appellant/convict in the court. During cross -exam ination P.W.3 confirmed that at
the time of occurrence apart from the inmates mentioned in her statement no other person was
present in the house. She further confirmed that Tehsildar recorded her statement in hospital on
the night of occurrence. P.W.3 fur ther clarified that they narrate Kalashnikov as rifle. P.W.3
admitted that in her 161, Cr.P.C. statement she had not stated that her father died at the spot,
voluntarily stated that she was unconscious and subsequently came to know that her father had
died on the spot. During cross -examination of P.W.3 no material contradictions or
improvements have come on record and P.W.3 has narrated the clear account of the occurrence.
P.W.4 Master Hamza is circumstantial witness, who stated that on hearing fir e shots at about 1 -
00 p.m. from the house of Yar Muhammad, he went to the house of Yar Muhammad and saw
dead body of Naveed near the door and found Yar Muhammad lying in injured condition in the
room, who asked him to take him to hospital and when P.W.4 wi th Latif tried to hold Yar
Muhammad, Latif told P.W.4 that the appellant/convict has told him that if anybody attempted to
take Yar Muhammad to the hospital, he will also kill him. Due to this fear P.W.4 and Latif came
out of the house, the appellant/convi ct was standing in the courtyard of the house of Yar
Muhammad with Kalashnikov. P.W.4 identified the appellant/convict. During cross -examination
P.W.4 stated that he gave statement to Tehsildar on 17 -4-2004 and admitted that in his statement
under section 161, Cr.P.C. he had not stated that the appellant/convict was standing in the
courtyard of the house of Yar Muhammad with Kalashnikov.
P.W.5 Mst. Malook Khatoon is wife of deceased Yar Muhammad and mother of deceased
Naveed. P.W.5 recorded her statement in conformity with P.W.3 and stated that on the day of
occurrence at about 1 -00 p.m. her husband was in his room. She along with her daughters and
son Naveed were in kitchen. Suddenly they heard fire shots from the room of Yar Muhammad
and she saw the appe llant/convict firing upon deceased Yar Muhammad. After firing the
appellant/convict, with Kalashnikov in his hand, came towards kitchen and started calling bad
names to them. The appellant/convict made firing and injured Naveed and Gulshan. Naveed in
injur ed condition went to the room of her husband Yar Muhammad and when he reached on the
door the appellant/convict murdered Naveed by firing. Immediately after the occurrence Hamza
(P.W.4) and Gul Muhammad (P.W.7) reached at the spot and they tried to take th e injured to the
hospital, but the appellant/convict threatened them to kill if they took Yar Muhammad to the
hospital. Hamza and Gul Muhammad went from the place of occurrence, whereafter, her
husband Yar Muhammad died. P.W.5 stated that the motive of the occurrence was the dispute of
property. P.W.5 during cross -examination admitted that on hearing fire shots she did not come
out of kitchen, voluntarily stated that she saw the occurrence from the window of the kitchen and
after the occurrence she became u nconscious. P.W.5 confirmed that Tehsildar recorded her
statement and in her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. she had stated that the
appellant/convict had demanded money and land of his parents from deceased Yar Muhammad.
The defence in cross -examinat ion of P.W.5 got confirmed the motive of the occurrence being
dispute of ancestral property/legacy. The statement of P.W.5 is in conformity with the other
prosecution evidence and there are no material contradictions in the statement of P.W.5.
P.W.6 Dr Muhammad Younas issued Medico -Legal Certificate confirming the following
injuries on the body of P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan: --
(i) An entrance bullet wound about 3 cm in circumference above the right knee joint;
(ii) An entrance bullet wound about 3-1/2 cm in circumference in the lateral side of thigh;
(iii) An exit wound about 4 cm in length rough edge on lateral side of above right knee joint;
(iv) An exit wound about 4% cm in circumference in medial side of left thigh;
P.W.6 confirmed the injuries caused by fire arm. The patient was referred to Karachi for further
treatment. Medical certificate Exh.P/6 -A was issued by P.W.6. P.W.6 was not cross -examined by
the defence.
P.W.7 Gul Muhammad is another circumstantial witness, who stated that on 16 -4-2004 he was
sitting in a hotel, where he received information that the appellant/ convict has murdered his
brother Yar Muhammad, and his son Naveed. On this information he went to the house of Yar
Muhammad and saw Naveed lying dead in the door and Yar Muhammad was lying in injured
condition, who asked him to take him to hospital. He tried to hold him, but the appellant/convict
stopped/restrained him Mst. Memal asked him to take the injured Mst. Gulshan (P.W.3) to
hospital and he along with help of other people took her to Civil Hospital Turbat. In cross -
examination P.W.7 stated that he received information at about 2 -00 p.m. and his statement was
recorded at 11 -00 a.m. on 17 -4-2004 by Tehsildar in the house of Yar Muhammad. During cross -
exam ination an improvement was confronted to P.W.7 that in his 161, Cr.P.C. statement he had
not stated that Yar Muhammad asked him to take him to hospital.
P.W.8 Dr. Irshad Ahmed of Basic Health Unit Saami examined the dead bodies of Yar
Muhammad and Naveed Ahmed and after examining the dead bodies P.W.8 issued medical
certificates Exh.P/8 -A and Exh.P/8 -B with his signatures. P.W.8 confirmed the following injuries
on the body of deceased Yar Muhammad: --
ENTRANCE WOUNDS
(i) A wound about 3 cm in circumfer ence at the left side lateral to the mouth angle;
(ii) A wound about 3 -cm in circumference at the right 5th intercostals, space medial to
midaxillary line;
(iii) A wound about 3 -1/2 cm in circumference right upper arm exterior surface of the elbow
joint and fracture of lower end of humerous;
(iv) A wound about 2 -1/2 cm in circumference at the right iliac fossa;
EXIT WOUNDS
(i) A lacerated wound below the ear lobule of left side,
(ii) A lacerated wound at the back right side lower angle of scapul a'
(iii) A lacerated wound at the right upper arm medial side above the elbow joint;
(iv) No any exit point.
P.W.8 observed following injuries on the body of deceased Naveed Ahmed: --
ENTRANCE WOUNDS: --
(i) A lacerated wound about 4 cm at the righ t hypochondrium;
(ii) A lacerated wound at the left hypochondrium;
EXIT WOUNDS
(i) A lacerated wound at the left hypochondrium;
(ii) A lacerated wound at the umbilical region lateral to mid line left side of umbilicus. The gut
protruded out from a bdominal cavity;
P.W.8 confirmed all the above injuries caused by fire arm and the cause of death was certified as
damage to the vital organs and excessive bleeding. P.W.8 was not cross - examined by the
defence.
P.W.9 Tahseen Ahmed Tehsildar Turbat, is the Investigating Officer, who arrested the
appellant/convict on the day of occurrence with Kalashnikov and registered a separate case under
section 13(e) Arms Ordinance, 1965. P.W.9 also recovered 12 empties and one lead bullet from
the place of occurre nce. The blood -stained clothes of the deceased and injured were taken into
possession through recovery memo. The dead bodies of deceased Yar Muhammad and Naveed
Ahmed were taken into custody and sent for medical examination and subsequently the same
were h anded over to the legal heirs without postmortem. Site map was prepared, statements of
the witnesses were recorded. Statement of P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan was recorded in Civil Hospital
Turbat. The Kalashnikov with empties was sent to the Expert for analysis and repot Exh.P/9 -E
was received. Incomplete and complete challans were submitted against the appellant/convict.
During cross -examination P.W.9 stated that when he was going towards the place of occurrence
he met P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan injured on the way at Shera k. P.W.9 admitted that Naib Nazim
Turbat was accompanying him to the place of occurrence and he remained present throughout
with him at the place of occurrence. P.W.9 further Stated that the appellant/convict was also
residing in the same house. P.W.9 duri ng cross -examination admitted that in the site map he has
not shown the spots of recovery of empties and lead bullet. P.W.9 further admitted that in the
recovery memos he has not mentioned about the sealed parcel of Kalashnikov, empties and the
lead bullet . P.W.9 admitted that during investigation it revealed that motive for the occurrence
was the property dispute. P.W.9 stated that the Kalashnikov with empties was taken for analysis
to Karachi by his Reader and by one Levies Piada, for which he got approva l from District
Administrative Officer, but that Murasala is not on record. The report of Fire Ann Expert
Exh.P/9 -E confirms that the 12 -empties have been fired from the SMG Rifle No.19037776.
The appellant/convict in his statement under section 342, Cr. P.C. while replying question No.12,
answered that all the witnesses are close relatives of the wife of deceased Yar Muhammad who
falsely deposed against him. While replying question No.13, the appellant/ convict opted to
record his statement on oath and wh ile replying question No.14, the appellant/ convict opted to
produce defence witnesses, but record reflects that the appellant/convict neither recorded his
statement on oath, nor produced evidence in defence.
Appreciation and scrutiny of above evidence r eveal that unnatural death of deceased Yar
Muhammad and Naveed Ahmed by firing has not been disputed by the defence. Multiple fire
arm injuries caused to injured P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan by firing of Kalashnikov has also not been
disputed by the defence. The mat erial prosecution witnesses P.W.3 injured Mst. Gulshan and
P.W.5 Mst. Malook Khatoon, wife of deceased Yar Muhammad and mother of deceased Naveed
Ahmed remained consistent and have not been shaken during cross -examination. The ocular
evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5 is fully supported and corroborated by unchallenged medical
evidence and is further corroborated by the recovery of Kalashnikov from the possession of the
appellant/ convict at the time of his arrest, recovery of empties, led bullet and positive repo rt of
Fire Arms Expert Exh.P/9 -E. the circumstantial evidence of P.W.4 Master Hamza and P.W.7 Gul
Muhammad lends further corroboration to the ocular testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.5. Though
P.W.4 and P.W.7 are not the eye -witnesses, but they are witnesses of t he circumstances narrating
the callous nature and brutal attitude of the appellant/convict, who had threatened them to be
killed, if they had taken injured Yar Muhammad to the hospital and due to threat of
appellant/convict P.W.4 and P.W.7 left the place o f occurrence without taking injured Yar
Muhammad to the hospital for treatment. It has come on record that the statements of P.W.4 and
P.W.7 were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. on the next day of occurrence and there is no
explanation in this regard. On this score if the statements of circumstantial witnesses i.e. P.W.4
and P.W.7 are kept out of consideration, even then the prosecution case stands fully supported by
confidence inspiring and unshaken statements of injured witness P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan as w ell as
P.W.5 Mst. Malook Khatoon, who have witnessed the occurrence. The argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant/ convict that the material prosecution witnesses are relatives of the
deceased and are inimical towards the appellant/convict has no force, as admittedly the
occurrence took place inside the house and the inmates of the house are the natural witnesses. It
is well -settled principle of law that mere relationship of a witness with deceased is no ground for
discarding his evidence, if he ot herwise appears to be truthful and his presence at the place of
occurrence is established. Relationship of a witness with any of the parties would not discard his
testimony. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Ijaz Ahmed v. The State, 2009 SCM R
99, wherein it was held as under: --
"Merely because witnesses are kith and kin, their evidence cannot be rejected, if otherwise it is
trust worthy"
Reliance in this regard is also placed on the case of Faisal Mehmood v. The State, 2010 SCMR
1025, whe rein it has been held as follows: --
"Relationship of the witness with the deceased alone is of no consequence, unless he is
established to be inimical towards the accused".
The recovery of Kalashnikov from the possession of the appellant/convict at the time of his
arrest is fully supported by P.W.2 as well as P.W.9 and the positive report of Fire Arm Expert
Exh.P/9 -E confirms the fact that the Kalashnikov bearing No.19037776 was used in the
commission of the offence. According to prosecution evidence th e appellant/convict was also
residing in the same house and was younger brother of deceased Yar Muhammad, as such no
question of mistaken identity arises. The motive of the occurrence has come on record through
P.W.5 Mst. Malook Khatoon being dispute of an cestral property and the motive of the
occurrence has not been denied by the appellant/convict during cross -examination of P.W.5,
rather the same has not been confirmed by the defence during cross -examination of P.W.5. On
the basis of confidence -inspiring overwhelming, consistent and corroborative evidence available
on record, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant/convict in a callous and brual manner
due to dispute of ancestral property caused cold blooded murder of his real elder brother and hi s
nephew and caused serious injures to his niece and did not allow the people of the area to take
the injured Yar Muhammad to the hospital for treatment, due to which he succumbed to the
injuries at the spot. In our view the prosecution has proved the char ge against the
appellant/convict under section 302, 324, P.P.C. up to the hilt and the defence has absolutely
failed to cause any dent in the prosecution case despite cross -examining all the material
witnesses. The appellant/convict deserves no leniency. W e have found no mitigating
circumstances to award lesser punishment to the appellant/convict. Since the guilt of the
appellant/convict for causing murder of deceased Yar Muhammad and Naveed Ahmed and
attempt to cause murder of P.W.3 Mst. Gulshan and causin g her grievous fire -arm injuries stands
proved beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court has rightly imposed normal penalty of death to
the appellant/convict.
With regard to quantum of sentence, reliance is placed on the case of Jawed Malik v. The State,
2005 SCMR page 49, wherein it has been held as follows: --
"A cold -blooded murder was committed by the appellant, which was fully supported by the
ocular and circumstantial evidence as well as the medical evidence. This court time and again
has held that when a case for Qatl -e-amd is proved against accused, normal sentence of death
should be awarded."
Reliance in this regard is also placed on the case of Hamid Mukhtiar v. Muhammad Azam, 2005
SCMR 427.
Similarly in case of Zahid Tmran v The State, PLD 2 006 SC 109, it was held as follows: -
"In case of murder when the facts are clear the onus is upon accused to show the circumstance
which would bring the offence within the category of those offences in which capital sentence
should not be imposed. The la w indicates the gravity of the offence by the maximum penalty and
the courts have to Judge whether the act committed falls short of the maximum degree of gravity
and if so to what extent. Therefore, unless extenuating circumstances can be found, a
murderer must be sentenced to death."
In the instant case nothing is available on record to justify a sympathetic, lenient or a
concessional treatment for the appellant/ convict.
It is to be observed here that the courts owe due to the legal heirs/rela tions of the victims and
also to the society, therefore, the sentences awarded should be such, which should act as
deterrent to the commission of the offences. The approach of the court should be dynamic and if
the court is satisfied that the offence has b een committed in the manner as alleged by the
prosecution, the technicalities should be overlooked without causing any miscarriage of justice.
Hence for the above reasons we found no merit in the instant jail appeal, consequently the appeal
having no for ce is dismissed. The conviction awarded to the appellant/convict vide judgment
impugned dated 31 -5-2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mekran at Turbat is upheld. The
Murder Reference No.10 of 2005 is answered in affirmative.
H.B.T./120/Q Appea l dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.