SADAM ULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 123 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

SADAM ULLAH VS State Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dying declaration---Infirmities---Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased then injured/complainant---Record showed that before the report the deceased then injured was taken to hospital---Investigating Officer was present at the time of examination of the deceased by Medical Officer at hospital---Investigating Officer later recorded the report of the deceased then injured at hospital in shape of murasila but he did not record the statement of the deceased then injured at hospital---Medical Officer who examined the deceased then injured at hospital had observed that the deceased then injured was semi-conscious and non-cooperative and had further stated that the injured was not in a position to record his statement---Deceased then injured was thereafter shifted to other hospital where his report was recorded and his thumb impression was obtained by Investigating Officer---Said witness during his Court statement had referred to certificate available on record which, according to him, he had obtained from the concerned doctor with regard to consciousness of the deceased then injured---Question was, when Investigating Officer had prepared the injury sheet of the deceased then injured at hospital then why he did not chalk out his report there and then 45 minutes prior to his shifting to other hospital---Certificate of consciousness though depicted that the deceased then injured was conscious but the same certificate had been signed by an unknown person and only his signature was there on the certificate without his name or designation---Even the prosecution had not examined the concerned Medical Officer who had issued the said certificate---Dying declaration of the deceased then injured, which was the only substantive piece of evidence with the prosecution, was belied by medical evidence---Deceased was not able to record his statement, as such, said piece of evidence was not sufficient for sustaining conviction of the accused---Record showed that the occurrence took place on 28.12.2014 whereas the injured complainant died on 08.01.2015 but during that interregnum the Investigating Agency neither made any effort to obtain any authentic certificate from the Medical Officer who had attended the deceased during his stay in the hospital nor recorded his statement through a Judicial Magistrate as provided in R. 21 of Chapt. XXV of Police Rules, 1934---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Head Notes

SADAM ULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 123 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported