MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2022 YLR 967 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by eye-witness--- Scope--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that 10/11 days prior to the occurrence, there was an altercation between deceased and accused, who extended threats of dire consequences---Record showed that the statement of eye-witness recorded before the Court was not reconcilable with her statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Said eye-witness stated before the Court that they woke up on hearing of voice and noise of people and found the four culprits in the house who were armed and co-accused made a straight fire upon her husband and he fell down---Witnesses woke up upon hearing of noise and voice of people and the murder was committed inside the room, whereas in the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., witness stated that they heard the noise of fire and woke up and her husband opened the door and went outside the room and the accused made a straight fire on him and he fell down, which they observed from window---Witnesses woke up upon fire report; and incident took place outside the room---Accused in the court statement were alleged to be armed but without describing the nature and kind of weapon, whereas in the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. eye-witness described the kind of weapon and also attributed holding of two boxes by accused---Said witness, in the Court statement stated that after half an hour police came and they narrated the incident to the police; they made statement to police and described the incident, however, statement under S.164 Cr.P.C. witness stated that due to fear they did not disclose the incident to anybody and after arrest of the accused they came out of fear and narrated the same facts to police---Witnesses, for the first time made statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. to police after arrest of accused and his nomination---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2022 YLR 967 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR