MUHAMMAD HASHIM ISLAMI vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1338 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD HASHIM ISLAMI VS State Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7--- Illegal dispossession--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statement of witnesses--- Scope--- Accused were charged for occupying the agricultural land of complainant illegally on the point of weapons and issuing murderous threats---Record showed that complainant mentioned in his complaint that the accused had built their house in the land after putting a hedge of thorny bushes---When the complainant entered into the witness-box, he stated that another person was the accused who had built his house on his land---Complainant in his examination-in-chief stated that the accused persons had cut down acacia trees available in the land but the memo of complaint was silent regarding any such allegation---Prosecution witness in his deposition claimed that his land was adjacent to the land of the complainant but he had not produced any proof of his ownership, which created doubt regarding such claim specially when it had come on the record that he was not residing in a nearby village but his village was situated about 15 kilometres away---Complainant in the memo of complaint while describing his land had not shown that the said witness's land was adjacent to his land---Prosecution witness had admitted in cross-examination that he was cousin of the complainant and he admitted that in the alleged incident of dispossession none from the complainant side including himself received injuries while at the time of the incident the accused persons were armed with batons and hatchets---Prosecution witness, who was an employee of complainant could not be termed as an independent witness---Such contradictions and convincing material had persuaded the Trial Court to disbelieve the complainant's case regarding dispossession up to the extent of the other accused---Trial Court conceived that only the accused was responsible for the alleged offence---Reason for that persuasion was the statement of the accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., in which he claimed that he had purchased the land from the complainant and had possession of the same on account of the alleged sale agreement in which allegedly the complainant entered with him---Circumstances established that the case of illegal dispossession by the accused persons had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt through some credible evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD HASHIM ISLAMI vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1338 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ