ABDUL GHAFFAR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 769 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDUL GHAFFAR VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the mother and sister of complainant by firing---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant, brother of one of the deceased and uncle of the complainant being eye-witnesses---Oral statement of eye-witnesses was recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case at the hospital at 5:45 a.m. on 10.10.2019, whereas the occurrence took place on 10.10.2019 at 2:30 a.m.---Oral statement of complainant was hence recorded after three hours and fifteen minutes of the occurrence that too at the hospital and not at the place of occurrence---No reason, much less plausible, had been given by the prosecution at any stage for such deferral in reporting the matter to the police---In the present case, the ocular account furnished was suffering from legal and factual infirmities and did not appeal to a prudent mind because, according to the prosecution's case, as a result of the firing made at the place of occurrence two ladies died at the place of occurrence and the same fact was also confirmed by the witnesses---However, the witnesses never reported the matter to the police at the place of occurrence for as many as three hours and fifteen minutes---Moreover, none of the prosecution witnesses, including eye-witnesses, ever proceeded to the police station or reported the matter at the place of occurrence and it was the Investigating Officer of the case, who, according to him, reached the place of occurrence where he found the dead bodies of the deceased ladies---Investigating Officer and recovery witness who had first reached the place of occurrence did not state a single word that eye-witnesses were present at the place of occurrence---Said aspect of the prosecution case had left no doubt that eye-witnesses did not witness the occurrence---Prosecution case was that the oral statement of the complainant was recorded at the hospital---Thus, there must be some plausible reason for that failure of the eye-witnesses, not to report the matter at the place of occurrence to the police promptly---However, none was available and hence doubts had arisen regarding the presence of the said witnesses at the place and time of occurrence---In that regard an inference against the prosecution eye-witnesses had to be drawn---Apart from the above, eye-witnesses were highly interested and inimically deposed against the accused---First reason for disbelieving them was that their presence on the spot was unnatural because had they been present at the spot, they would have received some injuries from the shots fired by the accused---Thus, it appeared that they had tried to suppress their interestedness---Both the said eye-witnesses did not justify their presence at the time and place of occurrence---Thus, it did not appeal to the logic that the person whose sister and mother were being murdered neither made any resistance nor raised a hue and cry for help despite the fact that the alleged occurrence took place in a populated area where there were other houses near the place of occurrence---According to the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the said witnesses, they were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Alleged occurrence took place in the area of District "Q", whereas both the eye-witnesses were residing in another province, and the said place was at a distance of 350 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Both the said witnesses had not given any plausible explanation for their presence at the spot at the time of the incident---Said witnesses had no place of business near the place of the incident, therefore, both the said witnesses were chance witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the culpability of the accused through reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

ABDUL GHAFFAR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 769 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ