Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Be that as it may, it is admitted position that the petitioner is not enrolled as an advocate under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973, and/ or a practicing lawyer and has no standing at the bar at all.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Conviction upheld----Background: The appellant, was convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, for the offense of murder under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500,000, payable to the legal heirs of the deceased. In default of payment, he would serve an additional six months of simple imprisonment. The case stemmed from an FIR lodged by the complainant Muhammad Ali on 07.05.2016, following the murder of his father, Zamir Ahmed Veesar. The appellant was accused of shooting the deceased after a dispute over a minor issue involving children. -----Issues: 1- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was credible and sufficient to support the conviction. 2- Whether the trial court properly evaluated the testimonies of the witnesses and the medical evidence. 3- Whether the appellant was falsely implicated due to a family dispute. 4- Whether there were material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence that warranted the appellant's acquittal. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The court, after careful examination of the arguments and evidence, upheld the conviction and sentence. The following points were crucial in the decision: ---Eyewitness Testimonies: The prosecution presented three eyewitnesses, including the complainant Muhammad Ali and two other relatives, who all testified consistently about the events leading to the murder. They stated that the appellant, who is the real brother of the deceased, shot Zamir Ahmed in a fit of rage following a verbal altercation. The court found their testimonies credible and natural as they were present at the scene of the crime. ---Medical Evidence: The medical officer's testimony confirmed that the deceased suffered multiple gunshot wounds, which matched the account provided by the eyewitnesses. The injuries were consistent with the cause of death being due to excessive hemorrhage and damage to vital organs. ---Investigation and Forensic Evidence: The investigating officer and other supporting witnesses provided detailed accounts of the investigation process, including the recovery of the murder weapon and empty cartridges from the crime scene. The forensic analysis linked the recovered weapon to the crime, further corroborating the eyewitness accounts. --Defense's Argument and Court's Rejection: The defense argued that there were material contradictions in the witnesses' testimonies and that they were interested parties with a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. However, the court found these contradictions to be minor and not significant enough to undermine the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. The court also noted that the relationship of the witnesses to the deceased did not automatically discredit their testimonies, especially when their accounts were consistent and supported by other evidence.The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the defense and upheld the trial court's judgment based on substantial and corroborated evidence. ------Citations/Precedents: Abdul Jabbar alias Jabbari v. The State (2017 SCMR 1155) Muhammad Asif v. The State (2017 SCMR 486) Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) Dur Muhammad and another v. The State and another (2020 YLR 470) Naseer Ahmed v. The State and others (2020 YLR 488) Muhammad Ehsan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1857) Niaz-Ud-Din v. The State (2011 SCMR 725) Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) Zulfiqar Ahmed & another v. State (2011 SCMR 492) Zakir Khan v. The State (1995 SCMR 1793)

Summary: Pending