ZAIN-UD-DIN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 26 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.

ZAIN-UD-DIN VS NOOR MUHAMMAD Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of father of the complainant by firing---Motive for the offence was stated to be previous blood-feud between the parties---Complainant stated that he with his deceased father was residing in a joint house and that it was at 12.00 noon when the deceased took his bicycle and started for the mosque---Complainant further stated that it was after 30 minutes of his father leaving, he also started for the mosque on his motorcycle to perform his Jumma prayer---Admittedly, both, father and the son were residing in one and the same house and that on the day of incident they were present in the house when the deceased left for the mosque on his bicycle---Despite the fact that the complainant was in the knowledge that his father was leaving for the mosque which was situated at a distance of 05/06 kilometres, he did not ask his father to wait, so that both could go together---Place of occurrence was situated at a considerable distance from the house of the deceased, but surprisingly all the three i.e. the deceased complainant and eye-witness reached there at one and the same time---Complainant had been shown at point No.4 in the site plan which was situated in the middle of shrubs locally known as (parasa)---Though, the complainant pointed his presence at point No.4 in front of the shops but he failed to convince the purpose of his presence as he was supposed to go to the mosque---Eye-witness had been shown at point No.5 which was situated on a footpath, when he appeared before the Trial Court he stated that he was also going to the mosque on his motorcycle, but he failed to convince that why he did not use the metal road instead of using the unpaved footpath, which was often used by the pedestrians---Conduct of the witnesses was unnatural on that particular aspect of the case---Eye-witness stated that when he reached to point No.5, he stopped his motorcycle in order to inquire from a person regarding Jumma prayer, but the record was silent regarding the presence of said person and even no specific point was attributed to him in the site plan---Circumstances established that the acquittal judgment was well reasoned, which called for no interference---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head Notes

ZAIN-UD-DIN vs NOOR MUHAMMAD Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 26 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported