MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR Ss — 2022 YLR 1992 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.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD BASHIR Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the alleged incident which was furnished by witness, was the only eye-witness, while the convict/co-accused was arrested, and his statement was recorded by the Trial Court---Convict/co-accused was convicted by the Trial Court, which was upheld by High Court as well as Supreme Court---Accused/ respondent was arrested on 15.08.2017---Supplementary challan was submitted before the Trial Court---Trial Court called the witnesses and during trial a witness appeared before the court and recorded his statement and produced the death certificate of eye-witness who died unnatural deaths---Said witness who appeared in the trial to the extent of convict/co-accused was the person who was the only eye-witness---In whose statement the conviction was awarded to the convict/co-accused, but during the fresh trial to the extent of accused/ respondent he was reported to have died unnatural death and was no more in the mortal world---Trial Court, on receiving the death report from witness, did not consider the statement of eye-witness to the extent of accused/respondent, which was recorded on the previous round of case---Statement of eye-witness was recorded once under S.512, Cr.P.C., and again when the convict/co-accused was arrested---In the present case, the prime evidence had not been produced before the court in the shape of eye-witness and no opportunity of cross-examination was awarded to the accused/respondent when the eye-witness had appeared to the extent of convict/co-accused---In such circumstances, the previously recorded statement of the eye-witness under S.512, Cr.P.C., and to the extent of convict/co-accused, was in the absence of the accused/respondent and the said witness was not cross-examined by the accused/ respondent and the same could not be issued against the accused/respondent---Circumstances established that the Trial Court had considered all the material present on record properly and arrived at the conclusion which was based on proper appreciation of the facts and law, thus did not need interference---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR Ss — 2022 YLR 1992 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR