2023 SCMR 1097
Recovery of weapon from accused --- Reliance --- Where the weapon of offence is recovered from the accused but the same is not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory , such recovery is inconsequential .
Attempt to commit qatl - j - amd , ghayr jaifah - hashimah --- Reappraisal of evidence -- FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. just after one hour of the occurrence --- Thus , it can safely be said that FIR was lodged with promptitude --- Promptness of FIR showed truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excluded possibility of deliberation and consultation --- Ocular account in the case has been furnished by complainant and two other prosecution witnesses --- Said prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross - examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record --- Said witnesses had given all necessary details of occurrence qua the date , time , place , name of accused , name of witnesses , manner of occurrence , kind of weapon used in the occurrence , the locale . of injuries and the motive of occurrence --- Ocular account furnished by the prosecution was reliable , straightforward and confidence inspiring --- Medical evidence available on the record further corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature , injured time , locale and impact of the injuries on the person was concerned --- Complainant had received injury at the hands of the accused and his testimony as well as the stamp of injury on his person clearly proved his presence at the place of occurrence --- Complainant and another prosecution witness were the inmates of the house where the occurrence took place , therefore , both said witnesses were the most natural witnesses --- Defence did not seriously dispute the motive part of the prosecution story --- In these circumstances , there was sufficient evidence available on the record to sustain conviction of the accused --- Conviction of accused under sections 324 & 337 - F ( v ) , P.P.C. was maintained --- Jail petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed .
Sentence , reduction in --- Spur of the moment occurrence -- Single fire shot on non vital part of body --- Payment of Daman in instalments --- As far as the sentence of 05 years awarded to the accused was concerned , the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment without there being any pre - ineditation on the part of the married with the accused and due to strained relations she was accused --- Complainant himself stated that his daughter was living in her parents house for the last one month --- Accused I came there to convince her and to take her to his house , and the parties took meal there --- However , subsequently a quarrel took place between the parties , which resulted in the commission of the crime --- Injured complainant only sustained one firearm injury and the accused did not repeat the same --- Locale of the injury suggested that the accused had no intention to kill the this view of the matter , while maintaining the conviction of the injured --- Accused had already suffered most of his sentence --- In petitioner under sections 324 & 337 - F ( v ) , P.P.C. , the sentence of 05 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to him under section 324 , P.P.C. was reduced to the period which he had already undergone --- Jail petition was converted into appeal and partly allowed with the direction that since the accused claimed to be poor and could not pay the Daman in one go , he may be released subject to his furnishing surety equal to the amount of Daman to the satisfaction of the Trial Court ; that the Trial Court shall grant one year's time to the accused for payment of Daman amount , which would be payable in equal installments ; ( c ) 109 that in case of any default in payment of monthly installment , the accused shall be taken into custody and dealt with in accordance with law .
0 Comments