PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

HIDDOO alias HIDAYATULLAH vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 6 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2023 PCrLJN 6 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2023
Parties
HIDDOO alias HIDAYATULLAH vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 25---; S. 342

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

Judgment text as reported

HIDDOO alias HIDAYATULLAH VS State Ss. 324, 353, 148 & 149---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 25---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, possession of illegal firearm---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Comparative perusal of evidence of two witnesses---Scope---accused were charged for making firing upon the police party with the intention to kill them when they were asked to surrender, police also made firing in retaliation in defence and arrested one of the accused persons---Record showed that the Trial Court had observed that the evidence of complainant and eye-witness/mashir showed that they both had deposed on same line and supported each other on all material points of charge viz; time and place of incident as well as the manner in which the incident took place---Mere comparison of the two depositions was not enough to reach a just conclusion---Trial Court was required to appreciate the entire evidence as well as the statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. of the accused in proper perspective---Trial Court had placed unnecessary emphasis on procedure and on dilating upon various provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---There was no dispute as to the procedure adopted by the Trial Court or the provisions of law discussed by the Trial Court---Contents of the FIR as well as the evidence on record had not been examined as it should have been examined by a judicial officer---Primary duty of a judge was to sift grain from chaff---Statement of a complainant could not be taken as its face value as it had to be critically examined and scrutinized to see whether it was confidence inspiring and appeared to be true and supported by corroborative evidence---Further, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubts as the prosecution was duty bound to prove its accusation and the prosecution could not be benefited from the failure or inability of the defence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English