Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH vs State S

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 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Promptly lodged FIR---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Time of occurrence was shown as 02:00 p.m. while report thereof was lodged at 03:45 p.m. on the same day---Distance between spot of occurrence and Police Station was shown to be 10/15 kilometers in a mountainous area---Thus, the report could be considered as a promptly lodged one keeping in view the distance through which the complainant had to take dead body to the hospital or Police Station both of which were situated nearby---Circumstances established that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of pistol from house of the accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the pistol had not been recovered from or on pointation of the accused rather same had been shown recovered from house of the accused on 29.09.2015 while he had been arrested on 24.08.2016---After the arrest of accused, identification memo had been prepared by the Investigating Officer, showing that accused had identified the pistol to be his own but marginal witness to the recovery memo had stated that when the accused was being confronted with the pistol same was not in sealed form---Such evidence of recovery from a house which was not proved to be in exclusive possession of the accused could not, therefore, be called to be believable---However, recovery of pistol was a corroboratory piece of evidence and case of the prosecution which was otherwise based upon direct testimony of two eye-witnesses was found well-established--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH VS State absconsion---Scope---absconsion by itself is not sufficient to declare a person offender but such evidence may be used for the purpose of corroborating other evidence of the prosecution. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses including complainant---Statement of the complainant was fully corroborated by medical evidence---Other eye-witness had also given similar narration of the occurrence in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-examination no major contradiction could be solicited from his mouth---Defence tried to develop an argument that the eye-witnesses were consistent in respect of the place where the accused had been present at the time of occurrence---Defence had also contended that the other witness was not present at the spot of occurrence, but was rather present in his home---However, when the statements of complainant and other witness were with the site plan, the contentions of the defence were misconceived---Even otherwise, a part of site plan where the Investigating Officer tries to re-enact happening of an occurrence was not a substantive piece of evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Unnatural conduct of eye-witnesses, plea of---Defence objected that both the brothers/eye-witnesses stood as spectators and had not tried to save their brother or catch the accused after commission of the offence and, therefore, their conduct should be dubbed as unnatural---Held, that there had not been any enmity between the parties and the complainant party might not have expected such a reaction from the accused---In the first report of the occurrence, it was mentioned that the moment the deceased, then alive, went towards the accused, he was fired at---Occurrence had taken place all of a sudden where both the witnesses stated that they attended to their deceased brother immediately after the occurrence---Said fact was very much natural that they would have rushed towards their brother so as to save him---Moreso, there were also maize crops in the vicinity, therefore, the accused would not have faced much difficulty in disappearing from the spot of occurrence---In the given circumstances, no unnatural conduct was displayed by any of the eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case NOOR HABIB SHAH vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 1413 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ