| Case ID |
2e79de03-b9b9-4e00-9f9c-9b81f0269fce |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1978 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal has been dismissed. The Sindh High Court found the appellants guilty based on substantial ocular evidence, the recovery of blood-stained hatchets, and a credible dying declaration. The court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing the reliability of statements recorded during committal proceedings under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defense’s claims of unreliable witnesses and lack of evidence were deemed unsubstantiated. Additionally, the court referenced precedents such as Rajoo v. State and Muhammad Yar and others, reinforcing the acceptance of committed court statements and corroborative physical evidence. The judgment underscores the integrity of the judicial process in addressing offenses involving serious bodily harm and murder, ensuring that relationships and potential biases among witnesses do not impede the delivery of justice. The appellants' attempts to negate their liability through alleged enmity and false testimonies were rejected, reaffirming the conviction based on the comprehensive evaluation of forensic and testimonial evidence. |
| Summary |
In Criminal Appeal No. 68 of 1978, heard by the Sindh High Court on 07/11/1979, the appellants Ali Gul, Abdul Rahim Shaikh, Rahimdino Shaikh, and Khillan Shaikh were convicted for the intentional murder of Imamuddin under sections 302r cad with 34 and 323;34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (P. P. C.), and faced penalties including life imprisonment and fines. The prosecution presented compelling evidence, including blood-stained hatchets recovered from the appellants and a credible dying declaration from Imamuddin, which was corroborated by ocular witnesses. Despite the appellants’ defense, which included claims of mitigating circumstances and unreliable witnesses due to familial relationships, the court upheld the conviction. The defense argued the inadmissibility of statements recorded under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. P. C.) post-law reforms; however, the court dismissed this, citing the non-retrospective application of the law and the provision in section 265 Cr. P. C. The judgment referenced key precedents like Rajoo v. State and Muhammad Yar and others to reinforce the validity of committal court statements and the sufficiency of physical evidence. The court emphasized the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring that biased testimonies from related parties did not overshadow the objective evidence presented. Medical examinations corroborated the severity of injuries inflicted by the appellants, linking them directly to the homicide. The decision underscores the importance of reliable forensic and testimonial evidence in criminal convictions, particularly in cases involving close-knit communities where witness impartiality might be challenged. By dismissing the appeal, the Sindh High Court reaffirmed the original trial’s findings, ensuring that justice was served based on the merits of the evidence, while also highlighting the procedural safeguards in place to maintain the fairness and credibility of the legal system. This case serves as a significant reference for the admissibility and weight of committal court statements, the role of corroborative physical evidence in criminal convictions, and the judicial approach to mitigating defenses rooted in personal relationships and alleged witness unreliability. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Sindh High Court,
The State,
Rasool Bux,
Imamuddin,
Ali Gul,
Abdul Rahim Shaikh,
Rahimdino Shaikh,
Khillan Shaikh,
Gullan
|
| Judges |
G. Muhammad Shah,
Muhammad Zahoorul Haq
|
| Lawyers |
Imam Ali Kazi,
S. Murtaza Hussain
|
| Petitioners |
3 Others,
Ali Gul
|
| Respondents |
The State
|
| Citations |
1980 SLD 1737,
1980 PCRLJ 1190
|
| Other Citations |
Rajoo v. State (1971 SCMR 216),
Muhammad Yar and 5 others (1971 SCMR 667),
Qassim v. State (PLD 1967 Kar. 253)
|
| Laws Involved |
Pakistan Penal Code,
Code of Criminal Procedure,
Evidence Act
|
| Sections |
302r cad with 34,
323;34,
544,
288,
265,
162,
32(1)
|