MASOOD AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 63 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.

MASOOD AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b), 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused persons made firing on the complainant party, due to which, four persons sustained injuries and son of complainant succumbed to the injuries---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death---Occurrence took place at 7.30 a.m. while the complainant submitted fard-e-biyan at 5.00 p.m.---Record reflected that complainant had informed her husband after five minutes of the occurrence, who reached at the spot and took the injured to hospital---Cousin of victim/witness stated that his uncle/father of victim was informed and he came at the spot and took the injured to the hospital in a hired vehicle---Ocular account had been furnished by mother and cousin of deceased---Said witnesses alleged to be eye-witnesses, who stated that the injured was taken to hospital by his father, who was informed by complainant, but the record of prosecution was not supporting the version of above witnesses---Lady Police Surgeon in her deposition stated that the injured was brought to hospital for medical examination at 2.15 p.m., whereas the Investigating Officer stated that a person could reach hospital within an hour---If the stance/version of complainant and cousin of deceased was to be accepted then question arose as to where the injured was kept for nearly more than seven hours---Said witnesses had not come with whole truth---Defence at the very outset disputed the time of occurrence---In such situations, it appeared to be unreasonable that parents, brother and cousin left the injured in blood oozing condition without shifting him to nearby hospital for treatment---Human nature was that relative firstly try to save the injured by shifting him to nearby hospital without any loss of time---Circumstances showed that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as stated by the ocular account---Record depicted that husband of complainant neither took the injured to hospital nor proceeded to Levies Station for registration of FIR---Application was submitted by his wife---Father of deceased had not recorded his statement to Investigating Officer---Ocular witnesses failed to establish that father of deceased reached at the place of occurrence---Statement of prosecution witnesses was not in line with each other rather contradictory---Such contradictions, omission, improvements and infirmities could not be overlooked. Head NotesCase Description

MASOOD AHMED vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 63 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported