Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN 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 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Dying declaration---Accused were charged for committing murder of sister-in-law of the complainant and also causing injuries to the complainant and his relative---Statement of injured, then deceased, was recorded during investigation by the Investigating Officer, after gaining her consciousness, wherein she charged accused for making firing upon her and causing injures upon her person---Injured then deceased later-on died in the hospital---On scrutiny of her statement, it was observed that injured, then deceased, died after some 38/39 days of the occurrence---Said victim remained alive for sufficient time, hence, having no immediate apprehension of death, her statement could not be considered as dying declaration---To authenticate such statement, the Investigating Officer was required to have recorded the statement of the concerned Medical Officer of the hospital to confirm that injured, then deceased, was conscious and well oriented in time and space and that it was a voluntary statement to implicate the respondent for the crime---Thus, in all, the statement of injured, then deceased, recorded after 38 days of occurrence did not qualify to be accepted as dying declaration---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Contradictions and willful improvements made by witnesses in their statements---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of sister-in-law of the complainant and also causing injuries to the complainant and his relative---From the statements of complainant and eye-witnesses, it was clear that their statements were not only contradictory but they also suffered from willful improvements---Site plan was prepared on the pointation of eye witnesses, but in their statements complainant and eyewitness had misdescribed the presence of each and every accused as well as their own spot---In his cross-examination complainant replied that at the time of occurrence and inflicting of injury, injured was standing on eastern side of the house of Mr. "B" whereas accused was standing on western side whereas in the site plan the spot given to said accused was towards south of the house of Mr. "B" and injured was further towards north of accused---In his initial report, complainant had not stated anything about the grappling of two persons but complainant in his cross examination had stated that on arrival at the spot the said witnesses grappled with the accused persons---In the FIR, it was mentioned that on hearing fire shot and hue and cry, the two witnesses were attracted, whereas, a witness, who in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., had not mentioned anything about seeing the entire incident, had recorded full-fledged statement, stating to have seen the entire occurrence---Thus, there existed material contradiction in the statements of the said witnesses and at the same time they had made willful improvements in their court statements to bring the case in line with prosecution story, hence, their testimony was not free from doubt, and in the absence of independent corroboration, their statements could not be believed to be true and reliable---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Recovery of crime empties from the spot and weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---No reliance without supporting evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of sister-in-law of the complainant and also causing injuries to the complainant and his relative---Prosecution story described two fire shots resulting in injury to complainant and deceased---As per recovery memo two alleged crime empties were recovered from the spots of two accused---Deceased had three bullet wounds on her person and therefore recovery of only two empties did not commensurate the number of injuries of the two injured---Allegedly, a 30 bore pistol was recovered on the pointation of accused, which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis along with two alleged crime empties and the report thereof revealed that the pistol was without a firing pin, hence, no comparison could be made---Other .30 bore pistol and axe, allegedly used in the offence, were not recovered to conclusively prove that those were used in the commission of offence---Though shirt and shalwar of the two injured were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was opined that those contained human blood and report was in positive, but without any other supporting material on the record, it would not connect the accused persons with the alleged crime---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Delay of one hour and forty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of sister-in-law of the complainant and also causing injuries to the complainant and his relative---Record showed that the occurrence allegedly took place at 04:30 p.m. and report was lodged at 06:15 p.m.---Prosecution version was that two witnesses reached the spot of occurrence as soon the quarrel started and allegedly they tried to intercept the accused party, which meant that if the prosecution story was accepted to be true, then both these persons were present at the time of quarrel and injuries sustained by the injured, but they took about two hours to shift the injured to the hospital, when admittedly the spot of occurrence was near to the metalled road where vehicles plied regularly---Thus, time was consumed in lodging the report and inference could be drawn that report was lodged after due deliberation and consultation to rope all their opponents in the case---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(ii) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-badi'ah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Ocular account not supported by medical evidence---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of sister-in-law of the complainant and also caused injuries to the complainant and his relative---From the contents of FIR, it was clear that besides the complainant, the occurrence was witnesses by three persons and being the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, they were expected to be consistent and coherent in their statements---Complainant in his report attributed the role of axe blow to accused and one fire each to other two accused resulting in injuries one each to deceased sister-in-law of complainant and the complainant himself---In their statements, they consistently replied that two accused had fired one fire each, which hit deceased and complainant---In contrast to the above, it was in the evidence of Medical Officer that deceased received three (3) fire shots, one grazing injury on arm, another fire arm injury and third on right hypochondrum with corresponding holes present on the shirt---Thus, the medical evidence was in startling contrast to the ocular account forwarded by the complainant and eyewitness regarding the number of fire received by the deceased---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN VS State art. 46---Dying declaration---Scope---Dying declaration is a statement which a person makes, under the belief that as he/she is to depart to the world hereafter, hence, the person would make a true statement without advancing the cause or reason of his/her death.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case SHERAZ KHAN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ