SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs State S — 2022 SCMR 1540 SUPREME-COURT

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

SAJJAD HUSSAIN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Benefit of doubt--- Scope--- Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 1540 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case SAJJAD HUSSAIN VS State Ss.302(b) & 109---Qatl-i-amd, abetment---Reappraisal of evidence---Rule of consistency---Co-accused persons acquitted on the same set of charges--- Possibility of fatal fire shots made by the co-accused persons---In the present case, although the accused had been assigned a specific role of firing at the chest and arms of the deceased persons, the perusal of evidence suggests that the other co-accused persons had also made straight fires on the deceased, which shots hit on different parts of their body---Locale of the injuries sustained by the deceased due to the firing made by the co-accused persons had not been described---According to postmortem report, one of the deceased sustained as many as 14 injuries on his body whereas 5 were on his chest---Every possibility existed that the fire shots made by the co-accused persons would have also hit the chest of the deceased---However, said co-accused persons along with all other co-accused had been acquitted of the charge either by the Trial Court through a separate trial or by the High Court through the impugned judgment---Police in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. had not found the accused involved in the occurrence and he was only found involved to the extent of communication with co-accused via a mobile phone---However, neither the mobile phone nor Call Data Record was placed on record---Furthermore, no memo of recovery of mobile phone was ever made---So far as the allegation of abetment against the accused was concerned, the three ingredients essential to establish/charge any person as conspirator i.e. (i) instigation, (ii) engagement with co-accused, and (iii) intentional aid qua the act or omission for the purpose of completion of said abetment, were squarely missing from the record of the present case---Weapon of offence i.e. Kalashnikov had also not been recovered from the accused---No incriminating evidence was available against the accused to distinguish his case from that of the co-accused persons since acquitted---Prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and the accused was acquitted of the charge. Head NotesCase Description

SAJJAD HUSSAIN vs State S — 2022 SCMR 1540 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR