UMAR GUL vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 103 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

UMAR GUL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the uncle of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the role of command had been attributed to second accused, but the record was silent that what prompted him to command the accused to kill the deceased---When the other accused had nothing against the deceased then in such eventuality it did not appeal to a prudent mind that he would ask the co-accused to kill the deceased as the motive was stated to be between accused and the deceased---However, it was disclosed that many years back mother of the accused was done to death where the deceased was held responsible for killing of his mother---When the motive was between the two i.e. the deceased and the accused then it was he who was to take the revenge and in that eventuality there was hardly an occasion for the co-accused to command---If it was taken what the complainant stated to be correct then the command was always issued by a person whose interest was greater than the killer, but in the present case it was the accused who had a greater interest in the deceased than the co-accused---Prosecution could not collect any positive evidence which could help in forming an opinion that the co-convict had shared common intention with the principal accused---Record told that the co-convict was not the resident of either of the village of the complainant or the principal accused and even the record was silent regarding his previous ill-will with both the complainant and the deceased---Despite efforts it could not lay hands on any substantial evidence which could convince that he shared common intention with the principal accused and that it was he who facilitated him in coming to the place of incident---Though while reporting the matter it was mentioned by the complainant that the accused arrived to the place of incident on a motorcycle, but neither the registration number nor the model of the motorcycle was disclosed---Investigating Officer could not collect any documentary evidence which could tell that it was the ownership of the co-convict and in such eventuality lurk no doubt that the prosecution could not succeed in connecting the co-convict with commission of the offence, that too, under S. 34, P.P.C---Conscious of the fact that the complainant was the sole witness of the incident and that bifurcation of both the accused in respect of commission of the offence was a bit tricky, but while bifurcating the role of the co-convict the prosecution story would not suffer to an extent to dislodge its credibility against the principal accused as the role of the co-convict was that of facilitator and of command, so the complainant could not bring material against him to convince regarding his involvement with the purpose and that alone was sufficient to tell that the co-convict needed benefits of the same---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in connecting the co-convict with commission of the offence---Appeal of co-convict against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Mode and manner of occurrence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the uncle of the complainant by firing---Record told that complainant was accompanying the deceased at the relevant time as it was he who with the help of the people, available at the place of incident, shifted the deceased to the hospital and reported the matter within twenty minutes---Complainant stated that on the day of incident he along with the deceased left his village, as the deceased was intending to renew his CNIC---Complainant and deceased left their village and reached the NADRA office where the deceased stood in a queue and thereafter succeeded in submitting his documents regarding the renewal of his CNIC---Neither the complainant produced the relevant documents to the Investigating Officer to establish their presence and purpose nor the Investigating Officer collected anything from the office in that regard---None of the sides could produce and could collect the same, but the deceased lost his life near the NADRA office which was his destination---Defence could not succeed to tell otherwise as the complainant and the deceased had no other purpose in the vicinity---Investigating Officer did not record statements of officials from the NADRA office, but that alone would not discredit the eye-witness account, rather the defence was to travel an extra mile to convince otherwise---Date of occurrence and date of renewal of CNIC of the deceased left no ambiguity that the deceased visited the NADRA office on the day of incident---Complainant succeeded in establishing on record that on the day of incident he in the company of the deceased visited the office---Defence could not succeed in discrediting the veracity of the complainant and it could not convince to hold another view---Record was silent regarding the interest of the complainant to charge the accused for ulterior motive---True that the relation between the accused with the deceased was strained as mother of the accused was killed many years back which put both the families at daggers drawn---Attending circumstances of the case left no ambiguity that the incident occurred in the mode and manner and at the stated time---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against accused was dismissed. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of the complainant at the place of occurrence was not doubtful---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the uncle of the complainant by firing---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be based on the honour of women folk---Defence objected that the complainant was not present at the time of incident and that his attendance was procured from his village---No denial to the fact that the village of both the deceased and the complainant was situated at about 20/25 kilometers away from the place of incident and that in such a quick succession the procurement of the complainant from his village was beyond imagination---In order to ascertain as to whether the submissions of the defence had substance in it, it was appropriate to go through the report made by the complainant---Record told that the incident occurred at 09:40 a.m. whereas the matter was reported at 10:00 a.m. in hospital to the local police---Record further transpired that the dead body was received by the doctor at 10:15 a.m. and he started his post mortem examination at 10:30 a.m.---Quick succession of events rebut the submissions of the defence and thus no possibility or interest on part of the police officials to procure the person of their choice to report the matter was seen and as such he was termed as an interested witness, therefore the stance of defence was not agreeable---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against accused was dismissed. Motive---Scope---Weakness or absence of a motive in itself was not sufficient to discredit the veracity of the witnesses and overshadow the clarity of the prosecution case---Weakness or absence of motive played a little role, that too, in different cases---Such was not the yardstick that in all cases where the alleged motive could not be established the prosecution would suffer, rather the same could be pressed into service for limited purpose, more particularly in determining quantum of sentence. Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Place of occurrence was not doubtful---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the uncle of the complainant by firing---Site plan depicted that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the place of incident as the Investigating Officer collected two empties of 30 bore from the place of the accused and blood stained earth from the place of the deceased---Collected empties were sent to the Fire Arms Expert wherefrom an opinion was received that the empties were fired from one weapon---Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against accused was dismissed.

UMAR GUL vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 103 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported