Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN vs State S

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 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Motive not proved---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be illicit relations of female deceased with the male deceased---In the present case, although the prosecution had alleged motive of illicit relations between the two deceased, however, the prosecution had not brought on record an iota of evidence to prove the same---If at all there was a motive as alleged by the prosecution in the FIR, then the same had no relevancy with the present accused when admittedly, husband of the female deceased, her father and brothers were still alive as it could be a matter of honour for them at the first hand and not for the present accused---Thus, it was too unreasonable and improbable that a person with such a remote relationship would act in such a manner, as alleged by the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Site plan negating complainant's version---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---In this case, the site plan was prepared on the pointation of the complainant as well as other alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence which showed that the houses of the two deceased though were situated in front of each other, but at a distance of 300 yards---Site plan further stipulated that female deceased was shown at point "B" which was inside her room whereas the complainant had been shown at point No. 5 and the mother of the deceased had been shown at point No.6, whereas the other deceased had been shown at point No. 1 at the veranda of his house, whereas witnesses had been shown at points Nos. 3 & 4 inside the house and as such the complainant at point No. 5 could not see the places assigned to both the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Not essential that there should be many grounds for giving benefit to the accused, even a single doubt will be sufficient to extend its benefit to an accused person as it is the cardinal principle of criminal administration of justice that let hundred guilty persons be acquitted but one innocent person should not be convicted. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Medical evidence contradicting contents of FIR---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---In the present case, as per the contents of the 'Murasila' the occurrence had taken place on 30.08.2002 at 03:00 p.m. whereas the report was made to local police on the next day i.e. on 31.08.2002 at 01:00 p.m., after twenty two long hours of the occurrence, however, Medical Officer appeared in Court had stated that on 31.08.2002 at about 06:00 p.m. i.e. after 27 hours of the occurrence when he examined the two deceased fresh blood was oozing from their injuries---Said fact alone was sufficient to cast a serious doubt as how fresh blood could ooz from the injuries after twenty seven hours and that too in hot summer weather--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Informer of incident not appearing as witness---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---Record showed that the prosecution had not been able to prove the contents of the First Information Report for the reason that the complainant, the very maker of the report, had not been produced as witness in the Court to support the contents of the FIR---Thus, when the very foundation of the prosecution case had not been established, then any superstructure built upon it through production of any other witnesses would be of no fruitful result for the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Mode and manners of the occurrence doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---In the present case, the fathers, brothers or any other male members of both the deceased had not come forward to charge the present accused and both of them had opted to just produce the old ladies in the Court i.e. mothers of both the deceased, which conduct of the complainant-party prima facie showed that they had suppressed the mode and manner and real facts of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---Ocular account in the case had been furnished by mothers of both the deceased persons---Mother of male deceased had clearly stated in her statement that at the relevant time her deceased son was sitting outside the house when in the meanwhile the accused came there and started altercation with the allegation of illicit relations of my son with the sister-in-law of the accused and he then fired upon his son and shot him dead with three fire shots---Said witness had candidly stated that it was 03:00 p.m. and on the next day of the occurrence the local police came to the spot and prepared site plan on her pointation and the police also recovered three empty shells and blood stained earth from the scene of occurrence---Statement of said witness had presented a totally different picture when it was seen in juxtaposition with the site plan---In the site plan the male deceased had been shown at point No. 1 which was inside the veranda of the house of said witness and as such her statement alone was sufficient that the prosecution had not been able to prove the mode and manner of the occurrence as the statement of said witness went a long way to contradict the First Information Report as well as the site plan which was prepared on pointation of the complainant and other eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Another alleged eye-witness of the occurrence, mother of the female deceased, appeared in the Court and she in her examination-in-chief had straight-away stated that she did not want to prosecute the present accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of twenty two hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister-in-law and her paramour by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be illicit relations of female deceased with the male deceased---In this case the record revealed that the occurrence had taken place on 30.08.2002 at 03:00 p.m. whereas the report had been lodged by the complainant on the next day of the occurrence i.e. on 31.08.2002 inside the house of one of the deceased at 01:00 p.m. and as such there was twenty two hours delay in lodging of the First Information Report and that too when the local police visited the house of the complainant---Said delay had cast heavy doubt on the veracity of the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case ZAHIREEN vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 998 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ