AHSAN MAHAR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 503 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.

AHSAN MAHAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 337-H(2), 504, 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Statements of eye-witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused with common intention, by forming unlawful assembly, duly armed with weapon killed the uncle of the complainant by making firing---Record showed that it was a day light incident being 7.30 p.m. in the month of May and the eye-witness/complainant knew the accused having seen him at close range and as such there was no need for an identification parade---Complainant stated that the motive behind the attack on his uncle was of children's affair as children belonging to each party had a fighting that day---Evidence of complainant was corroborative of his FIR, which was lodged one hour after the incident and thus, there was no time for him to cook up a false story---No enmity existed between the accused and his party and thus there was no reason to falsely implicate the accused---Accused was also named in the FIR with the specific role of shooting the deceased at his right hand and stomach with a rifle---Eye-witness was a natural witness and not a chance witness---Complainant lodged the FIR with promptitude and named the other eye-witnesses in the FIR, who also gave evidence as prosecution witnesses against the accused with specific roles---Eye-witness had no enmity with the accused and had no reason to falsely implicate him---Evidence of eye-witness was not dented despite lengthy cross-examination---Other eye-witness corroborated the eye-witness in all material respects---Said eye-witness was named in the FIR, which was lodged within one hour of the incident which dislodged any inference that he was not reliable because he gave his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C after two days, which in any event was not an exorbitant delay based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case where the deceased had to be taken to hospital and then buried---Said eye-witness was also seen by the Investigating Officer within two hours of the incident at the wardat when he came to inspect the wardat, so his presence at the scene could not be doubted---Another eye-witness corroborated eye-witnesses in all material respects except he did not discuss the motive---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

AHSAN MAHAR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 503 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ