TAJ MOHAMMAD vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1514 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.

TAJ MOHAMMAD VS State Ss. 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 114 & 109---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, cases in which qisas for qatl-i-amd shall not be enforced, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abettor present when offence was committed, abetment---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt--- Test identification parade---Infirmities---Accused were charged for committing murder of seven persons and injuring three persons---Record showed that an identification parade was held on 05.02.1983 for the purpose of the witnesses to identify accused persons---Identification parade was not held in the prescribed manner---Four accused were put up for a joint identification along with only four dummies---Only the complainant identified the four accused, which must not have been difficult as by that time he had many opportunities to see them earlier---On 10.02.1983 another identification parade was held in which four other accused were put up for identification by the complainant---At that time again a joint identification parade was held but the number of dummies had increased to eight---Dummies and the accused were both brought by the Investigating Officer for the parade---Description of the dummies was not noted by the Judicial Magistrate, in fact he also admitted that he had not written the names and particulars of the dummies---Judicial Magistrate could not confirm that the age, height and other particulars of the dummies were written by him---Said witness also admitted that when the complainant had identified the accused, he had not said a word let alone assign a role to them---Absolutely no value could be given to such an identification parade---No other witness, who claimed to be an eye-witness, was brought in to identify the accused they did not know---Memo that the Judicial Magistrate made after the identification parade became further doubtful when contrary to what the Judicial Magistrate stated at trial i.e. the complainant did not say anything while identifying the accused, the memo recorded that the complainant stated that they were present on the scene---Even then, no role apart from presence had been attributed to them---Circumstances established that the prosecution was unable to prove its case against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

TAJ MOHAMMAD vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1514 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ