BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs State S — 2022 SCMR 986 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.

BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State S. 161---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Delayed recording of statement of witness under section 161, Cr.P.C.---Effect---Such delay reduces value of the statement to nil unless and until it is explained with justifiable reasonings. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 986 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Prosecution witnesses resiling from their S. 161, Cr.P.C. statements---Perusal of the record clearly revealed that the complainant had not seen the occurrence and had nominated the accused and co-accused in the crime- report for committing murder of his son by firing upon him on the basis of information received from three alleged witnesses---One of the said witnesses was not produced as a prosecution witness while the other two subsequently resiled from their earlier statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. and testified that the co-accused persons had not fired upon the deceased---Complainant in his supplementary statement recorded after one and half month of the occurrence had also exonerated the two co-accused persons---Keeping in view the conduct of the prosecution witnesses it would not be safe to only rely upon their statements to sustain conviction of the accused and there must be some independent corroboration to the extent of his involvement in commission of the crime---As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory the crime empties did not match with the recovered pistol, therefore, recovery of weapon from the accused was inconsequential---Medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular account as regards injury on the right hip of the deceased, which in-fact was an exit wound but according to the prosecution witnesses of ocular account the same was an entry wound---Appeal was allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge against him. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 986 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN 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---Conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence---Any doubt arising in prosecution's case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 986 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN VS State S. 342---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Abscondence of accused for a period of about six months---Where question of abscondence was not put to the accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., the same cannot be used against him. Head NotesCase Description

BASHIR MUHAMMAD KHAN vs State S — 2022 SCMR 986 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR