ABDUL WAHID vs State Ss — 2021 YLR 913 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

ABDUL WAHID VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular and medical evidence---Contradictions--- Scope--- Prosecution case was that the accused party made firing upon the complainant party, which resulted into instantaneous death of deceased on the spot and caused injuries to other members of the complainant party---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by four witnesses including complainant and injured persons---Complainant in his report and the eye-witnesses in their statements attributed a specific role of firing to accused---Injured witness attributed specific role to absconding accused persons of firing and causing injuries to him---Other injured witness attributed specific role of firing to absconding accused and causing injuries to him on his right leg---Another injured witness attributed role of firing to absconding accused persons and for causing injuries to him---According to prosecution witnesses, the accused persons were fourteen in number who made firing upon them---If indiscriminate firing was being made by fourteen persons with automatic rifles, no one could distinguish their role with exactitude as to whose shot hit whom---Medical evidence showed that all the injured witnesses sustained injuries on their backside but surprisingly, all the injured witnesses had attributed the accused with specific role of firing upon the deceased---Three eye-witnesses attributed role of firing to absconding accused and causing injuries to them---In such view of the facts when firing was being made by the accused persons how could it be possible that the complainant as well as the injured prosecution witnesses identified the accused persons and attributed individual role to each of them that too when they were not facing the accused persons---Said aspect of the matter created doubt in a prudent mind with regard to the mode and manner in which the occurrence took place---Injuries on the persons of the above witnesses were also doubtful---Neither complainant stated about the injuries allegedly received by him in his statement before the court as well as in his report nor he stated a single word about injuries of injured witnesses---Injured witness did not state a word about the injuries of complainant and other injured witnesses---Similarly, other injured witness did not state about injuries of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses---Prosecution story as put forth before the Trial Court was hardly believable, in circumstances---Record showed that all the accused were related to each other and were of the same clan---High Court observed that present case was best example of spreading the net wide and implicating maximum male members of the opponent family in order to deter them from pursuing their case---Circumstances established that the conviction passed by the Trial Court against the accused was against all canons of law recognized for the safe dispensation of criminal justice---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circum-stances.

ABDUL WAHID vs State Ss — 2021 YLR 913 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 YLR