MUHAMMAD NOMAN vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 95 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.

MUHAMMAD NOMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 392, 344 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, wrongful confinement for ten or more days, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of robbed items---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant and then robbing different articles from his house---Record showed that a camera was said to be recovered from accused three days later when he was roaming around on the road with it---Further recovery of one women's ring, two mobile phones, one mobile charger, one perfume, one hair wax and some money was also effected---Two mobile phones, one lotion, one air freshener, one spray, one box of Nokia and some money were recovered from his house on the pointation of co-accused---Recovery of one baby bracelet, two phones, one mobile charger, one body spray, one hair gel and some money was effected from the house of another co-accused---Such was unbelievable that the deceased had so many mobile phones and women's gold ornaments in his possession at the time of his murder---High Court observed that story of all the items being stolen from the deceased was an after-thought and created solely to connect the accused with the crime and showed motive for the killing---Partial case property i.e. the gold ornaments and money were produced in the court in an unsealed condition---Complainant who was a witness to the recovery stated at trial that none of the recovered property was sealed in his presence---Other recovery witness also stated that the case property had not been sealed in his presence---Complainant admitted that one of the phones produced as evidence was in a very bad condition---However, that was odd as it claimed that the deceased would purchase phones and then sell them---No evidence, even the vaguest one, was produced to establish that the deceased was in possession of so many phones in his normal course of business---No person was interrogated who could corroborate that aspect of the prosecution case---One of the witnesses to the recovery of the camera i.e. the complainant, testified that the camera said to have been his father's, and robbed by the accused, was recovered from accused whereas the other witness to the arrest testified that the said camera was recovered from co-accused---Nearly all of the case property was not produced at trial on the pretext that the malkhana had got robbed---Not explained as to how the bits and pieces of evidence which was produced, survived the malkhana "robbery"---Circumstances established that it would be unsafe to sustain a conviction on the basis of the evidence produced at trial---Appeals against conviction were allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD NOMAN vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 95 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported