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

JAVED ULLAH vs State Ss — 2021 YLRN 132 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2021 YLRN 132 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2021
Parties
JAVED ULLAH vs State 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

JAVED ULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses--- Scope--- Accused were charged that they made firing upon complainant and his son, due to which, son of complainant was hit and died---Record showed that the witnesses failed to reconcile the time of incident, the time of report and the time at which the injured was examined---Complainant stated that it was 07.15 p.m. when the incident occurred and that the matter was reported at 07.50 p.m., Medical Officer stated that the injured was produced before him at 07.50 p.m., however, it was yet to know that how the injured was examined at 07.50 p.m., when the matter was not reported by then---Scribe stated that the incident was reported at 07.50 p.m., it took 25 minutes to report and prepare the injury sheet---Not possible to ignore that one witness, who escorted the injured to the Medical Officer along with the injury sheet, stated that he produced the injured before the Medical Officer at 08.20 p.m.---Statements of all the three witnesses, when compared on that particular aspect of the case, no other inference could be drawn but that the incident did not occur at the stated time---Said factor alone was sufficient for holding that the complainant was not present with the deceased at the time of incident---Later entry of witness further damaged the case---Complainant at the time of report did not name the said witness to have seen the occurrence---Complainant on that particular aspect of the case, stated that had witness been present at the time of report, he would have been named in the FIR---Investigating Officer stated that it was at the time of spot inspection that witness disclosed himself to be the eye-witness---Though, the site plan was prepared at the instance of the complainant as well as the eye-witness, but the abrupt appearance of said witness told another story---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

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