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---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---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused were charged for committing murder of seven persons and injuring three persons---According to an injured eye-witness he was working in a tract of land that was two furlongs away from the place of incident and that it took him and the others half an hour to reach the place of incident after they had heard the sound of firing---Said witness also acknowledged at trial that the police had not recorded his statement ever and that he himself had also not gone to the police station to have his statement recorded---Said witness recorded his statement for the first time after ten years of the incident and then identified some of the accused who he had not known before, therefore such statement could not be given credence---In any case, said witness at trial was unable to attribute a specific role to any of the accused except one, who he said had hit him on his shoulder with a hatchet---According to the other injured witness when he reached the place of occurrence, the injured witness and the others were lying in injured condition---Said version was not in consonance with what first injured witness stated who said that they only had seen one injured---Said witness also testified that he did not know as to which accused had caused injuries to which deceased or injured---Another injured witness stated at trial that he could not say as to who caused injuries from the side of the accused to any witnesses---Said witness repeated himself in his cross-examination by saying that he had not seen any of the witnesses or the deceased receiving injuries during the occurrence---In such circumstance how then could he have seen one of the accused hitting one of the injured with a hatchet---Another witness admitted that the statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., which he had recorded was not taken by the Investigating Officer of the case but that some other Police Officer who he did not know had recorded it---Presence of said witness at the place of occurrence was indeed doubtful in itself---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