MOHAMMAD AQIL vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 4 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.

MOHAMMAD AQIL VS State S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dying declaration---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother-in-law (brother of wife) by firing---Murasila showed that the deceased had mentioned therein presence of his brother with him on the spot at the time of occurrence and nominated the accused for his firing at him but there was no endorsement on it by the Medical Officer, who had initially examined him, that at the time of making report its maker was oriented in time and space---Unless some opinion was given by the Medical Officer present in casualty ward of the hospital qua fitness of the critically injured person to lodge the report, no legal worth was to be given to the bare contents of the report that the complainant was conscious well to report the matter to police---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Site plan---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother-in-law (brother of wife) by firing---Record showed that the marginal witnesses to the site plan had not been produced by the prosecution and as such venue of the spot was not proved to corroborate what has been alleged in the FIR and deposed before the court by eye-witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witness at the spot at the time of occurrence was doubted---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother-in-law (brother of wife) by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was annoyance of the accused on the desertion of his wife, who was staying in the house of deceased---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by brother of the deceased---Presence of said witness on the spot at the time of firing at the deceased was doubted---Record reflected that the motive to commit the crime by the accused was common towards the deceased and his brother as well---Motive of an assailant when was common towards the targeted person and the eye-witness and both of them were found together by the accused then for selecting the one and sparing the other, the lucky person i.e. the one who escaped unhurt or spared, must give some account that what led for his not being targeted by the common enemy---Court statement of said witness that at the time of firing the deceased was proceeding ahead of him and in the site plan too, the witness had been shown behind the victim but the Injured (deceased) had not stated that while going to the mosque he was ahead of his brother---No doubt, it was not necessary that each and every detail was to be provided in the FIR but when the prosecution evidence consisted of sole eye-witness, who was also closely related to the victim, then, in such circumstance, the necessary detail became necessary so that it could corroborate presence of the sole eye-witness on the spot at the time of occurrence---Assuming that the deceased was ahead of the eye-witness but even then the distance between the accused and the eye-witness, as per the site plan, was 22 feet which was not a long distance for the accused to spare the eye-witness---True that it was not necessary for the assailant to have achieved all his targets he had in his mind but when he came fully prepared on the spot to accomplish his mission then for doing half of it the spared one must explain that why he was let off which was not the present case---Remaining unhurt of said witness would show that at the time of firing at his brother he was not present on the spot, therefore, his evidence could not be relied upon for the safe administration of justice---Record showed that on the extreme left corner of the murasila there appeared one cell phone number and the name of a person and according to Police Official, said person was neither eye-witness to the occurrence nor there was any material on the case file to show that he was relative of the deceased---Non-presence of brother of deceased on the spot at the time of occurrence, had been proved, writing of cell phone number and name of said person on the case murasila had led to believe that the deceased was taken from the spot by people of the area and brought to the hospital for treatment---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his brother-in-law (brother of wife) by firing---Record showed that the accused was arrested by Police Officer along with a pistol of .30-bore---Accused had pleaded his guilt in the case under S. 15 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act, 2013, but pleading of guilt and his such conviction on no count could be made a ground to record his conviction in the present case as each and every criminal case was to be decided on its own facts---No empties were recovered from the spot, therefore, on that score too the recovery of pistol and conviction of the accused in such situation was of little help to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

MOHAMMAD AQIL vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 4 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported