PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Ss — 2021 MLD 987 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2021 MLD 987 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2021
Reporter
MLD
Parties
ALLAH BAKHSH vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Ss
Subject matter
Criminal

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

ALLAH BAKHSH VS MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(ii), 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Contradiction between witnesses---Presence at scene of occurrence doubtful---Prosecution case was that the accused persons committed murder of the brothers of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the names of eye-witnesses were not mentioned in fard-e-bayan nor the eye-witness had shown the presence of the other eye-witness at the spot at the relevant time---Inference, in circumstances, could be drawn that the statement of alleged ocular account was not worthy of credence---Alleged eyewitness had not accompanied the complainant either to Levies Station or to hospital---If the witnesses were present at the spot then the complainant should mention the names of witnesses in fard-e-bayan---Circumstances suggested that the alleged ocular witnesses were foisted in order to strengthen the prosecution case---If the names of ocular witnesses were not mentioned in the FIR, their statements needed scrutiny---Record showed that the eye-witness had not shown the presence of accused, whereas the other eye-witness stated that the firing was made by absconding accused---Respondents were present at 15/20 pace away---Even the complainant in fard-e-bayan assigned the role of firing to absconding accused, whereas accused persons, were shown present at the spot and they were assigned the role of aerial firing by SMG and no empty shell of SMG was recovered from the place of occurrence---Witnesses had not attributed any coercive role to the accused in commission of offence---Circumstances established that the Trial Court had passed a well -reasoned judgment which warranted no interference---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2021 MLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English