RAZ MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

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

RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)--- Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---Motive was proved---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Motive behind the occurrence was the attempt of snatching of motorcycle of deceased by the accused and his accomplices i.e. absconding co-accused and two unknown persons, who, on refusal of deceased handing over his motorcycle, committed his murder by making firing with their Kalashnikovs upon him---Evaluation of the evidence brought on the record showed that the testimony of eye-witnesses had emerged unscathed from the lengthy cross-examination and the defence had not been able to establish their interestedness either in favour of the prosecution or against the accused---Complainant, who had immediately lodged FIR on receiving information about the incident from eye-witness had no occasion to consult his kith and kin before lodging the report wherein he directly charged the accused along with absconding co-accused and two unknown persons with active role of firing with their Kalashnikovs at deceased resulting into his death---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State Witness---Chance witness---Scope---Chance witness is one who appeared at the place of occurrence incidentally as per chance---If a crime is committed on a public thoroughfare or at a place frequented by the public generally, the presence of passerby cannot be rejected by describing them as mere chance witnesses, unless, of course, it is found that the witnesses concerned could not give any satisfactory explanation of their presence at or near the spot at the relevant time or there was otherwise any inherent weakness or contradiction in their testimony. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---absconsion of accused---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Record showed that after due proceedings under the provisions of Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C., the accused was declared proclaimed offender---Even otherwise the accused throughout the proceedings had not taken a plea that he was not aware about the implication as an accused in the subject case crime---accused had also neither examined himself on oath to explain and justify his whereabouts for such a long period of more than six years after the incident nor had he examined any person as his witness on that aspect---Such conduct displayed by the accused, who remained fugitive from the law and court for more than six years, without any plausible and reasonable explanation, was also indicative of his guilt when considered in conjunction with the ocular and the other circumstantial evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses---Both the said eye-witnesses had categorically stated that they were with deceased and were going to his land being his labourers for working there---accused persons duly armed with Kalashnikov signalled them to stop the motorcycle to which deceased stopped his motorcycle---accused attempted to snatch away the motorcycle, which was refused by the deceased to which the accused and his other three accomplices made firing upon deceased, resulting into his death on the spot---Incident was shown to have taken place on broad daylight at 09.00 a.m. and undeniably accused and absconding accused were already known to both the eye-witnesses---No question of mistaken identity of accused by the ocular witnesses, who being present at the scene of crime had witnessed the occurrence from a close distance and had supported the prosecution case---Said witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to shatter their testimony---Eye-witnesses remained consistent on all material particulars i.e. the time of occurrence, the manner of attack and the receipt of injures by deceased---No doubt there were some minor contradictions in their statements, but those being natural because of lapse of such long time of more than six years between the incident and their examination, were insignificant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)--- Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---First Information Report was lodged with promptitude---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Occurrence had taken place at 09.00 a.m.---Complainant who despite being father of deceased did not claim himself to be an eye-witness of the actual occurrence, lodged his report at 10.30 a.m. on receiving information about the incident from eye-witness on cell phone at 10.00 a.m. i.e. within half an hour and thus, there was no delay in lodgement of the FIR---Said factor by itself would rule out the possibility of false implication of the accused in the case involving such heinous offence of robbery and murder of an innocent person, who was done to death only on his showing slightest resistance during the process of robbery of his motorcycle by the accused and his accomplices---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---Non-sending of empties secured from the spot to the Ballistic Expert for his opinion---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Non sending of empties to the Ballistic Expert in view of the fact that there was no recovery of crime weapon in the case because of own conduct of the accused, who after the incident remained fugitive from the law and Court for more than 06 (six) years did not have any adverse impact on the prosecution case and that slightest omission cannot brush aside the overwhelming direct ocular evidence supported by strong circumstantial and medical evidence---Even otherwise, no hard and fast rule could be laid down as regards the weight to be given to the expert opinion---If the case stand proved against the accused by reliable, truthful and confidence inspiring evidence, then the lack of expert opinion would hardly have any adverse impact---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---Non-recovery of crime weapon from the accused---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery--- accused, who was nominated in the FIR with active role in the commission of the offence, after the incident had absconded away and was subsequently arrested after the span of more than 06 (six) years---availability of crime weapon under the peculiar circumstances of that case did not appeal and its non-recovery would have no adverse impact on the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case RAZ MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)--- Qatl-i-amd, haraabah---appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witnesses on the spot not doubted---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery---Both the ocular witnesses were found present at the place of occurrence at the time of spot inspection by Investigating Officer of the case, who prepared site map, took into possession four blood stained stones, three empty shells of Kalashnikov, the motorcycle of deceased and prepared memos of place of incident, recovery of above material, danistnama with the thumb impressions of the aforesaid both the eye-witnesses at the place of incident---Both the ocular witnesses, whose presence at the time and place of incident could not be doubted, deserved much credence because they stuck to their version till the end in spite of their having no axe to grind of their own to falsely involve the accused---Depositions of said witnesses on oath could not be brushed aside simply on the bald allegation that they were labourers of deceased and the venue of the occurrence was also undisputed---Prosecution, by producing ocular evidence of unimpeachable nature supported by the medical and other circumstantial evidence, had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Defence objected that as the ocular witnesses had not sustained any injury in the incident, therefore, their presence was doubtful being devoid of force was rejected for the simple reason that there could not be a presumption or rule that all the persons, who were under attack from firearms ought to have received injuries---Mere fact that some of them did not receive injury did not make their presence at the place and time of incident doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was dismissed accordingly. Head NotesCase Description

RAZ MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported