MUNEER AHMED alias MEER AHMED vs State S — 2022 PCrLJ 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUNEER AHMED alias MEER AHMED VS State S. 34---Common intention---appreciation of evidence---Common intention to launch murderous assault not established---Effect---admittedly it was only the main co-accused, who had an axe to grind with the complainant on account of his ex-wife having married the complainant---Furthermore it was also an admitted position that it was the main co-accused who fired upon the complainant and that the role of the accused and another co-accused was restricted to having allegedly accompanied the main co-accused and resorting to aerial firing while leaving the premises---No other role had been attributed to the accused and co-accused in the entire episode---In order to hold the accused and co-accused to be vicariously responsible for the act of main co-accused, it was necessary to show that the former two shared a common intention with the latter---apart from an assertion that the accused and co-accused had accompanied the main co-accused to the place of occurrence there was no evidence produced at trial to show that the all three had come with a pre-arranged plan to murder or injure the complainant---accused and co-accused were armed too and there was nothing stopping them from also shooting at the complainant, but they did not---Though they might have shared dislike for the complainant, but it was not proved or any evidence shown which would even prima facie show that the accused and co-accused shared a common intention with the main co-accused---allegation of aerial firing while leaving the premises levelled against accused and co-accused was also doubtful in view of the fact that the police found only one empty from the place of incident---Investigation Officer admitted at trial that the parcel in which even that one empty cartridge was sealed was not signed by the witnesses to the recovery, which further cast doubt on the allegation---No recovery was effected from the accused and co-accused after their arrest though they were said to be armed with pistols---In such circumstances benefit of doubt should have gone to the accused and co-accused---appeal was allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to accused and co-accused were set-aside and they were acquitted of the charge.

MUNEER AHMED alias MEER AHMED vs State S — 2022 PCrLJ 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ