MUHAMMAD GULFAM vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 70 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.

MUHAMMAD GULFAM VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife by firing---Conduct displayed by the witnesses was not only unnatural but abnormal, as the witnesses constantly made conscious attempts to establish their presence on the spot---Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that after the deceased received firearm injuries, her mother went unconscious; and that the witnesses instead of attending their real sister, who was lying in a pool of blood, took their mother to the hospital for treatment---Record told that when son of complainant recorded his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C., he did not mention the unconsciousness of his mother and presence of other witness, along with them, at the time of incident---Both the witnesses did not support each other regarding the manner in which their statements were recorded, as mother of deceased stated that the statement of son of complainant was recorded on the day of incident, whereas son of complainant admitted that his statement was recorded after 13/14 days of the incident---Circumstances showed that none of the statements were recorded on the day of incident---In order to establish the physical condition of the complainant on the day of incident, neither the doctor, who treated her in the hospital was examined, nor the complainant produced the treatment chart of the hospital, so much so the Investigating Officer did not take pains to visit the hospital and collect evidence in that respect---Lack of interest on part of witnesses on that particular aspect of the case showed that an attempt was made to establish their presence on the spot and thereafter, but the circumstances did not support the case of the prosecution on said particular aspect---Circumstances established that the prosecution did not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife by firing---Investigating Officer visited the spot and on pointation of the complainant, prepared the site plan---Record told that during spot inspection, the Investigating Officer collected 17 empties of 7.62 bore along with blood-stained earth from the spot---Accused was arrested in injured condition from the hospital but the record was silent regarding his arrest---Allegedly, a Kalashnikov along with 17 live rounds and a hand-grenade were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from Malkhana of the concerned police station, though the same were declared to have been recovered from possession of accused at the time of his arrest, but surprisingly no one was examined to tell that at what time and at what place the accused was arrested---Record told that the accused was arrested on the same day the weapon of offence was taken into possession from Malkahana of the concerned police station, but the Investigating Officer could not produce any witness to depose in that respect---Police witness stated that he witnessed the recovery memo vide which the Investigating Officer took into possession one Kalashnikov recovered from the possession of accused and seventeen empties of the same bore---During cross-examination, he came forward with strange replies by stating that at the time of preparation of recovery memo, the accused was not present in the police station, rather he was admitted in civil hospital for his treatment---Circumstances told that the accused was not arrested in the mode and manner and that nothing was recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest---Investigating Officer was to tell that when the accused was hospitalized, then why he was not arrested on the day of the incident and that why his arrest was deferred---Belated arrest of accused raised an eyebrow over conduct of the witnesses and their presence at the time of incident in the spot/house---Right from the beginning till the end, the true facts were not brought on record rather an attempt was made, both by the Investigating Officer as well as the eye-witnesses to twist the events to their favour---Such conscious attempt on part of the witnesses created numerous dents in the prosecution story---Circumstances established that the prosecution did not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of witnesses at the spot was doubted---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife by firing---Despite the fact that son of complainant was available with the complainant when her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded but he did not opt for recording his statement---Prosecution was to answer that despite availability of the witnesses in the house at the time of incident and thereafter, why their statements were not recorded by the Investigating Officer---Belated statement of son of complainant had put a question mark on his veracity, had he been present in the hospital then his statement would have also been recorded---Statement of son of complainant was recorded, after a considerable delay to which he tendered abnormal explanation---Prosecution was to tell that when the complainant recorded her statement on the day of incident and visited the spot in the company of the Investigating Officer, then what precluded her to point out the place of incident and that why no addition in the site plan was made on her pointation---When on pointation of the complainant addition of places was made in the site plan, where son of complainant and his brother also put their signatures---Witnesses were to establish their presence on the spot, but the circumstances suggested that the incident did not occur in the mode and manner and that they were not present at the spot house at the time of incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution did not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife by firing---Both the witnesses i.e. mother of deceased and son of complainant fully contradicted each other on material aspects of the case---Said witnesses admitted the cordial relation between the spouses and even they admitted in unequivocal terms that the accused was stationed in abroad who, after meeting a road accident got his hands and legs fractured, was shifted to the country almost crippled---When the accused was having deformed physical condition, then after killing the deceased how he escaped from the place of incident and that why the witnesses including two real brothers did not attempt to catch hold of him---Witnesses were to explain that despite their availability in the house, why they did not come forward to rescue their sister from the clutches of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution did not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in sending the weapon of offence for analysis---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife by firing---Weapon was allegedly recovered and the same was sent to the Firearms Expert after a considerable delay---Investigating Officer did not explain as to where the recovered case property was lying in the intervening period, and even no witness was examined on that particular aspect of the case---Investigating Officer admitted that he did not record the statement of the witness who took the same to the laboratory, even he did not record the statement of Moharrir of the concerned police station, so much so, he expressed his ignorance regarding the official who took the same to the Firearms Expert---Recoveries were effected and transmitted to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory led nowhere but to hold that the prosecution failed to establish that particular piece of evidence, which could not be taken into consideration---Circumstances established that the prosecution did not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD GULFAM vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 70 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported