State vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ Ss — 2023 MLD 83 ISLAMABAD

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

State VS MUHAMMAD AYAZ Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be that the accused suspected that the deceased was having an affair with his sister---In the present case, the Impugned Judgment showed that the trial Court acquitted the accused mainly due to the fact that the prosecution failed to corroborate the solitary statement of the complainant through cogent, reasonable, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence particularly in view of the fact that the complainant was an interested and chance witness---Reasons for concluding that the complainant was a chance witness was that the evidence presented created serious doubts about his presence at the place of occurrence and the benefit of the doubt given to the accused---First reason for doubting the complainant's presence at the place of occurrence was the contents of the FIR itself---As per the facts narrated by the complainant in the FIR which were reiterated by the complainant in his examination-in-chief, both the complainant and his deceased brother were present at their shuttering store at about 6.30 p.m., when his brother went to offer prayers at the nearby mosque---Record did not show that the complainant accompanied his brother to the mosque---Yet the complainant went on to allege that when the brother arrived at parking, the accused and his co-accused arrived on a motoreycle and shot the complainant's brother in front of the complainant---No explanation as to how he suddenly arrived at the scene was available on the record---Events that allegedly took place after the complainant's deceased brother left their shop were witnessed by the complainant was doubtful---Veracity of the complainant was also questionable given that he claimed that he had a shuttering store at National Police Foundation whereas witness who claimed to be the complainant's friend and neighbor stated in his cross-examination that the complainant's business was situated near some Hospital---Accused pointed out that Fauji Foundation Hospital, was very far from the place of occurrence---Furthermore no shuttering store was identified in the site plan---Investigating Officer admitted that he did not interrogate the complainant about the reason for his presence since there was no shuttering store---Duty officer at the relevant time stated in his examination-in-chief that a call was made to Rescue 15 at about 6:35 p.m., about a firing incident---Said witness stated further that he visited the spot where dead body of a person was lying in front of the parking area and meanwhile the complainant also reached there---Said testimony indicated that the complainant was not at the place of occurrence with the body when the SI/Duty Officer reached there---Said witness further revealed in his cross-examination the he did not observe any bloodstains on the clothes and hands of the complainant---Indeed it was unlikely that the complainant would not have been stained with the deceased brother's blood if he was in fact present at the time of his death and had rushed towards him after he had been shot as mentiotred, in the FIR---However, no independent witnesses were produced by the prosecution despite the fact that according to the Investigating Officer, people had gathered randomly at the place of occurrence who gave him divergent views about the place and distance of firing, thereby indicating that there were independent witnesses available---Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was difficult to say that the prosecution proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt--- Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 83 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case State VS MUHAMMAD AYAZ Benefit of doubt--- any genuine doubt arising out of the circumstances of the case should be extended to the accused as a matter of right and not concession.

State vs MUHAMMAD AYAZ Ss — 2023 MLD 83 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD