Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN 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 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 334, 337-F(vi), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Minor contradictions---Procedural lapses---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died---As the matter was reported in the shape of Daily Diary, the prosecution went with an understanding that until and unless inquiry was conducted FIR could not be registered, and as such the statements of the witnesses could not be recorded soon after the incident---Said fact at the most could be taken a procedural lapse, which alone could not overturn the prosecution case---Though one could not agree with what the prosecution did, as an FIR should have been registered soon after the injured was received in the hospital, however, the intention of the prosecution was noble, despite the procedural lapses---Such procedural lapse alone was not the sole criteria to adjudge---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal was partially allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 334, 337-F(vi), 109, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Dying declaration---Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died---Record showed that soon after the incident the deceased, then injured, was rushed to the hospital, who was examined by the doctor and his Medico-Legal Certificate was prepared, whereafter he was referred to another hospital, and after getting confirmation regarding the fracture caused, the deceased, then injured, was referred to for specialized treatment, where he remained hospitalized for few days and after gaining stability was discharged from the hospital for further management at home---Although no certificate was obtained from the concerned doctor, regarding the capability of deceased to talk and nothing was brought on record that at the time when the deceased then injured, was lodging the report, he was alert and conscious, but it could not be ignored that the deceased received a fracture on his leg which later on turned to be the cause of his death---As the injury was on non-vital part of the body and the deceased, then injured, did not die on the day of incident, it was in itself suggestive of the fact that by that time the deceased, then injured, was fully conscious---Subsequent travel of complainant/deceased from hospital to hospital and his last management at home further clarified the situation---Attending circumstances of the case lent support to the report made in the shape of dying declaration and even the subject of dispute between the parties left no ambiguity that both the parties were claiming the property in question---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal was partially allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 334, 337-F(vi), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Case of free fight---Role played by individual accused to be assessed instead of joint liability---Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died---Sole eye-witness stated that on the day of incident, the accused persons along with others assaulted the deceased---Said witness specified the role played by each accused---When the parties were engaged in a free fight then instead of looking for joint liability, the role of every individual accused charged was to be assessed on the basis of his involvement in the episode and the role played---During his cross-examination, the witness admitted grappling between the parties and he also explained the way the deceased resisted---Cross-examination of the said witness had resolved the controversy regarding the counter claim of ownership to the property and the ensuing free fight between the parties---In case of a free fight the role played by every accused was to be judged individually in light of the attending circumstances of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal was partially allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 334, 337-F(vi), 109, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of complainant (deceased) recorded by the police---Admissibility---Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died---Defence objected that the statement of complainant (deceased) was recorded to police during investigation, which was only and only a statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., and that the same was not admissible in evidence---Validity---Mere fact of recording the statement of the deceased by the Police Officer during investigation did not make it inadmissible in evidence, as S. 162(2), Cr.P.C., specially excluded dying declaration from the restriction application---Ascertaining the veracity of a dying declaration in any particular case was an exercise into a question of fact and not of law---Thus, the usual aids employed by the Courts for determining the truthfulness of any statement would all be relevant for evaluating a dying declaration---Each and every dying declaration was liable to be scrutinized in its attending circumstances as well as on the basis of integrity of its maker---In the present case, it was the deceased then injured who reported the matter, who was fully conscious and oriented in time and space---Cause of death had fully been explained by the doctor before the Trial Court---Attending circumstances of the case lent full support to the statement of the deceased recorded before the police---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons---Appeal was partially allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 315, 316, 324, 334, 337-F(vi), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, qatl-shibh-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, modification of---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died---Motive for the offence was stated to be a dispute over landed property---Record showed that the Investigating Officer visited the spot, prepared the site-plan on pointation of the witnesses---Blood stained earth and empties could not be secured from the place of incident, as the site-plan was prepared after registration of the FIR---Site-plan depicted that the disputed property was the ownership of the deceased, but the Investigating Officer did not collect anything in that respect---Not only the deceased but the accused also claimed the same to be in their ownership---Eye-witness disclosed in his court statement that the same was purchased by the deceased, then injured, from one Mr. "A", but record was silent in that respect---Even the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the actual owner from whom the property was allegedly purchased, so much so that his name did not figure in the calendar of witnesses---Though prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons, however, after assessing the collected material the correct application of law, in case of the accused, would be S. 315 of the P.P.C. i.e. Qatl-Shibh-i-amd and not S. 302(b), P.P.C---Resultantly, the sentence awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C to the accused was altered to one under S. 316, P.P.C, and he was convicted and sentenced to five years---Other accused was only responsible for the injury caused on the scalp of the deceased and the same was punishable under S. 337-A(i), P.P.C, as such his sentence awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C was set-aside and the said accused was convicted under S. 337-A(i), P.P.C and sentenced to two years---Appeal was partially allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 315, 316, 324, 334, 337-F(vi), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, qatl-Shibh-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, ghair-jaiffah munaqqillah, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Scope---Accused were charged for making a murderous assault upon the complainant party, due to which the complainant sustained injuries and later on died---Record showed that the prosecution fully succeeded in bringing home guilt against the accused persons, but it was yet to be ascertained as to what should be the appropriate sentence in the given circumstances of the case---Initially all the accused i.e. the present accused persons and the co-accused were charged for forming unlawful assembly, but the same could not be proved on record, as the circumstances of the case convinced the Trial Court in that respect---As none of the accused had been convicted under Ss. 148/149, P.P.C, which confirmed that on one hand the trial Court was not satisfied with the evidence produced in that respect and on the other, the role of every accused was assessed individually, as there was a free fight between the parties---Weapon used in the episode was another circumstance which attracted attention to the intention behind the occurrence---While reporting the matter, the complainant then injured attributed a blow to the accused, with the dull side of the weapon, whereas to the other accused an incised wound on his scalp was attributed---Record showed that the deceased died of the injury caused to his leg, so it was essential to assess from the record as to whether the intention was to kill---Record of the case and the statements recorded led nowhere but to hold that the intention was not to kill, as the selection of weapon and the seat of injury excluded the eagerness to kill---Correct application of law, in case of the accused, would be S. 315 of the P.P.C and not S. 302(b) P.P.C, i.e. Qatl Shibh-i-amd---Resultantly, the sentence awarded under Section 302(b) P.P.C to the accused was altered to one under S. 316, P.P.C, and he was convicted and sentenced to five years---Other accused was only responsible for the injury caused on the scalp of the deceased and the same was punishable under S. 337-A(i), P.P.C, as such the sentence awarded under S. 302(b), P.P.C was set-aside and the said accused was convicted under S. 337-A(i), P.P.C and sentenced to two years---Appeal was partially allowed.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case LUTF UR REHMAN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1631 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ