RAFAAT SHAH vs State S — 2022 PCrLJN 39 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.

RAFAAT SHAH VS State S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Non-availability of justification for presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence---Un-natural conduct of witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he hit the brother of complainant with a stone on his head, due to which he succumbed to the injuries---Record showed that the prosecution had produced three witnesses including complainant in support of its case---Complainant of the case was not eye-witness of the incident---Other two witnesses were eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Said witnesses were closely related to the deceased---Admittedly, eye-witnesses were relative of deceased but neither they took the deceased to hospital nor informed the Levies Station despite that the Levies Station was situated on the opposite side of the place of occurrence i.e. shop---Eye-witnesses stated in their statement that the quarrel took place between the deceased and accused and they tried to separate each other, meanwhile the accused hit stone on the head of deceased---Said witnesses further stated that the deceased went home on motorcycle and after sometime, the deceased and complainant came at a place of incident on vehicle and thereafter they went to the hospital---Had they been present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence they must have taken the deceased either to the hospital or to Levies Station, which admittedly was not done---If said witnesses were unable to take the deceased either to the hospital or levies station than they could at least have deputed someone else for that purpose which had also not been done rather they kept on waiting for the complainant on the spot and left the deceased who went on motorcycle alone---Such conduct of near relative/eye-witnesses was not expected---Mode and manner of the occurrence by itself was not appealable to the prudent mined, therefore, it was highly unsafe to rely on the statement of both the said witnesses to maintain conviction and sentence of the accused on a capital charge---Circumstances established that conviction passed by the Trial Court against the accused was against all canons of law---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description

RAFAAT SHAH vs State S — 2022 PCrLJN 39 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported