ABDULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 50 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.

ABDULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present when offence is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which brother of the complainant died---Record showed that all the eye-witnesses were full of contradictions in respect of each aspect---Complainant and the witnesses made improvements in the case at the time of recording their evidence which created doubt---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that in result of firing some bullets hit walls, doors and articles of shop---Eye-witness stated in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether any bullet hit to wall, door or any article of shop and the other eye-witness also stated the same---Mashir of inspection of place of vardat and recovery stated during his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether complainant showed the marks of bullets on walls, door and articles of shop etc. or not---Mashirnama of inspection of the place of incident prepared at place of vardat was not showing any bullet marks on the wall and other articles available in the shop---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that when Investigating Officer visited place of vardat, the dead body of his brother was lying on earth---Eye-witness stated in his cross-examination that they brought cot from their house and put the dead body of his father over the cot when police came there---Mashir stated in his cross-examination that the dead body was lying on the ground floor of vardat---Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that the dead body of deceased was lying on the earth of a shop---Complainant stated that floor of the shop was built with pacca bricks and Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that it was katcha floor, there was no bricks on the ground---Each witness deposed contradictory to each other---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that the dead body of deceased was taken by them on one private vehicle towards hospital for post-mortem, whereas eye-witness stated in his cross-examination that police took dead body of his father on police mobile towards hospital for post-mortem purpose---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that all accused persons entered in the shop---All accused had fired upon deceased from front as well as from back side and that he was standing in the shop and remained silent due to fire arm weapons---Eye-witness deposed against the version furnished by the complainant and stated that accused fired upon them where they parked their motorcycles---Other eye-witness gave another version in that respect by stating that he had stated before police that all accused encircled them and on the direction of the accused he and other sat down there and deceased was standing and accused fired and the eye-witness stated that all the accused fired from Kalashnikovs by putting it on the body of deceased---All the witnesses gave their different version in that respect---Approach of complainant at the relevant time to the police station after the incident was also doubtful as complainant stated in his cross-examination that when he returned to place of vardat, he was on his personal motorcycle and Investigating Officer was on police mobile---Eye-witness stated in his cross-examination that police came at vardat after about half an hour of the incident, police came on police mobile, complainant was with them in police mobile---Investigating Officer in his cross-examination stated that complainant was with police and was on police mobile---Circumstances established that the contradictions in the evidence of the eye-witnesses and the improvements made by them during the trial were major in nature which cut the roots of the prosecution case and made it doubtful---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

ABDULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 50 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported