Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders---Appreciation of evidence---Weapon of offence recovered from the accused---Reliance---Accused was charged for firing upon the complainant's son and his companion, due to which the son died and his companion became injured---Recovery of .30 bore pistol was made which was allegedly used by the accused in the commission of offence---In that respect, employee of an Arms Dealer Shop was examined, where he stated that accused was well known to him being his friend, who was asking from him since six months prior to the occurrence to give him some pistol; that few days prior to the occurrence, the accused came to his shop and he gave him .30 bore pistol along with five live cartridges---Said witness stated that the accused demanded for the pistol urgently for his safety---Witness further stated that he did not know as to what for the accused was purchasing pistol from him---Said witness stated that during investigation, his statement was recorded by the police as well as before the Judicial Magistrate---During cross-examination, a question was put to the said witness regarding identification parade of the pistol in question to which he replied that the police did not conduct any identification parade and never asked him to identify the pistol in any such identification parade---Said witness also admitted that .30 bore pistols were openly available in the market and those could be easily purchased by someone in the open market---In view of such situations, it was necessary to put the recovered pistol to identification parade to ascertain that it was the same pistol which the accused had purchased from the witness---In the circumstances, recovery of pistol could not be used against the accused for sustaining conviction on a capital charge---Hence, Court was left with no option but to discard the matching report of Forensic Science Laboratory from consideration---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Bullet wounds---Medical jurisprudence---Accused was charged for firing upon the complainant's son and his companion, due to which the son died and his companion became injured---Accused was medically examined by the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and stated that in case of both the deceased as well as injured, there was no blackening and cheering marks etc---According to medical jurisprudence, charring marks, with pistol's fire, could be caused from a distance of six inches---In the present case, no charring marks or blackening was observed by the Medical Officer, which belied the stance of prosecution---As per prosecution version, if the accused had fired from a close distance at the deceased as well as inflicted injury to himself, then in that eventuality, Medical Officer must have noticed blackening and charring marks, which was not the case in the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for firing upon the complainant's son and his companion, due to which the son died and his companion became injured---Two stories in respect of the incident had been introduced---Firstly, the matter was reported by the accused himself by stating that on the eventful day, he along with the deceased, was riding on a motorbike, when two persons riding on a motorcycle came from behind and started firing, as a result whereof, he sustained injury on his left arm, while his companion died on the spot---Second story of the incident was introduced by father of the deceased, who recorded his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate, where he charged the accused for the commission of offence---Complainant stated that one eye-witness had seen the occurrence---While going through the record and evidence on file, no independent evidence of unimpeachable nature in support of the story narrated by the accused was found, however, second version of the incident, statements of father of the deceased and his maternal uncle were necessary to be referred---Complainant received information that his son was taken to the hospital, upon which he reached there and found his son lying dead---Complainant stated that on the next morning, an eye-witness informed him that he had seen the accused killing his son by firing, so complainant along with said witness visited police station where he charged the accused---Complainant recorded his statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Complainant further stated that the Investigating Officer had visited his house where statements of his wife and daughters were recorded---During course of investigation, complainant presented to the Investigating Officer letters from the accused to the deceased and his wife containing threatening material along with one live round of .30 bore---However, in cross-examination, complainant admitted that he was not the eye-witness of the occurrence---Complainant stated that the eye-witness was his relative---Said witness stated that he had seen the accused fire at the deceased with his pistol who after receiving the injury fell to the ground; that the accused aimed his pistol at him and due to fear he moved his motorcycle ahead to save himself; that instead of going to his house, he went to the house of his friend; that on the way to the house of his friend, there were number of check posts where police was present, however, he did not stop nor disclosed anything to Police Officials; that he did not return to his workshop and did not disclose the fact of having seen the occurrence to anyone until next morning; that he also did not disclose the same to anybody in the house of his friend out of severe fear---Said witness also did not inform anybody about the incident on telephone or mobile about the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding best evidence---Effect---Accused was charged for firing upon the complainant's son and his companion, due to which the son died and his companion became injured---In the present case, in view of statement of eye-witness, his friend, who the eye-witness visited immediately after the incident, was the best evidence to corroborate his testimony, but he was not cited as witness in the calendar of witnesses, as admitted by the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination---Story of the incident was allegedly told to complainant by the latter's eye-witness and in order to corroborate the testimony, friend of said eye-witness was never associated with the investigation nor was examined before the Court to ascertain the fact that after the occurrence, eye-witness spent a night at the house of his friend---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 201---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders---Appreciation of evidence---Blood and gun powder secured from hand of the accused---Reliance---Accused was charged for firing upon the complainant's son and his companion, due to which the son died and his companion became injured---Record showed that blood and gun powder from right hand of the accused were secured---In that respect Head Constable (witness) was examined, and he was also associated with the investigation and in his presence the Investigating Officer took into possession .30 bore pistol with two bullets in its magazine duly fitted and one bullet loaded in its chamber---Said witness was asked by the Investigating Officer to secure said pistol which he did accordingly and packed the same into a box and delivered to the Investigating Officer---However, during cross-examination, said witness stated that the Investigating Officer had indicated it by pointing out the same in a plot and asked him to preserve it which he did accordingly---Said witness stated to have obtained the finger prints as well as the blood and gun powder from the hands of the accused while he was admitted in the hospital, however, he did not ask any doctor or ward attendant to be the witness of said proceedings, which fact was also admitted by Investigating Officer, during cross-examination---In such eventuality, when no one from the ward staff was examined to support the testimony of Head Constable, securing of gun powder from the accused could not be believed, what to talk of the positive Forensic Science Laboratory Report in that regard---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FARHAN TARIQ vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1173 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ