Home Maxims & Terms Motive not fully established meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Motive not fully established

Motive not fully established legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2013 SCMR 378 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 302(b)/324/337-F(iii)Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimahReappraisal of evidenceSentence, reduction inSudden fightNon-repetition of fireMotive not fully establishedEffectAccused and co-accused allegedly killed the deceased and caused injuries to a witness during a sudden fight

Motive for the alleged occurrence was that accused and co-accused held a grudge due to a divorce obtained by their aunt, who was sister of deceased and mother of injured witness

Trial Court sentenced accused to undergo life imprisonment, while co-accused was sentenced to death

Validity

All prosecution witnesses and complainant were unanimous in narrating the occurrence and in nominating accused and co-accused for having fired at the deceased and for injuring the injured witness

Ocular account fully corroborated medical evidence on record

Witnesses remained steadfast during their cross-examination and no response could be elicited from them which could help the defence in any manner whatsoever

Although alleged motive for the occurrence was animus nursed by accused and co-accused due to the divorce obtained by their aunt, however strangely upon arriving at the scene of occurrence, they allegedly enquired about their aunt's son i.e. injured witness, rather than directing their anger at their aunt and her new husband, who were admittedly present at that time

Death of deceased and injuries caused to the injured witness were a result of sudden fight

Accused and co-accused did not repeat their fire shots despite the fact that injured witness and others were at their complete mercy

Appeal was allowed, death sentence of co-accused was converted to life imprisonment

Life imprisonment of accused was set aside, and only sentences of five years and three years, awarded to him under Ss.324 and 337-F(iii), P.P.C. respectively, were maintained.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Motive not fully established", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939603

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Motive not fully established"

SCMR 2013
Jail Petition No.607 and Criminal Appeal No.373 of 2010, decided on 23rd November, 2012.

2013 S C M R 378

MUHAMMAD YASIN and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 1985
Criminal appeal No. 133 and Murder Reference No. 32 of 1981, decided on 31stMarch, 1985.

1985 P Cr

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent

Court: Lahore
SCMR 1990
Jail Petition No. 9‑R of 1985, decided on 7th .Tune, 1989.

1990 S C M R 319

MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑Pc1ii inner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 1988
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1987, decided on 28th February, 1988.

1988 P Cr

MUHAMMAD TALIB and another‑‑Appellants Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
PLD 1988
Criminal Appeal No.719 and Murder Reference No.211 of 1984, heard on 21st June, 1988.

P L D 1988 Lahore 676

MUHAMMAD IJAZ alias JAJJI and another — Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Interested witness‑‑Witness, father of deceased corroborated by an independent prosecution witness who had no connection with him or animus against accused‑‑Such witness could not be termed as an interested witness in absence of any motive to falsely implicate accused. ‑‑Witness.
SCMR 1989
Jail Petition No. 28-R of 1988, decided on 2nd October, 1988. .

1989SCMR409

KHAN BAHADUR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: High Court
SCMR 1995
Criminal Appeals Nos. 4‑Q and 5‑Q and Criminal Petitions Nos. 23‑Q and 24‑Q of 1992, decided on 28th July, 1993.

1995 S C M R 1304

JAWAD ALI ‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 2007
2006-August-10

2007 P Cr

Raja MUSHTAQUE alias Raja YOUNIS — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 1985
Criminal Appeal No. 127 of 1984, decided on 28th April, 1985.

1985 P Cr

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others Appellants Versus THE STATE Respondent

Court: Lahore
YLR 2007
Criminal Appeal No.1744 of 2003 decided on 17th October, 2006.

2007 Y L R 287

GHULAM HASNAIN SHAH and 3 others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Lahore