UMER HAYAT vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 90 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.

UMER HAYAT VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be a money dispute---Record showed that the prosecution could not succeed in proving the alleged motive and even no independent witness was produced in that respect, so the same could not be taken into consideration---Even the complainant while reporting the matter did not charge the accused for the murder of the deceased and even no motive against the accused was brought on record---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused and that the impugned judgment was suffering from inherent defects which called for interference---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the accused was arrested and handed-over to the local police by real uncle of the acquitted accused, so the recovery effected was not free from doubt and the same could not be taken into consideration---Collected empties though were sent to the Firearms Expert along with the recovered Kalashnikov, but as the recovery was not effected from exclusive possession of the accused and that the same was handed over by his uncle, so the same could not be relied upon and there was every possibility that the same was planted---Uncle of the accused was not produced as a witness before the Trial Court, so that piece of evidence could not be taken into consideration, what to say to convict the accused with its aid, as such the benefit of doubt, if accrued would be extended to the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused and that the impugned judgment was suffering from inherent defects which called for interference---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Motive---Scope---Weakness or absence of motive was not sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case---Once motive was alleged, the prosecution was under the bounden duty to prove the same, failing which, non-else but the prosecution would suffer. Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Mode and manner of the occurrence was doubtful---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Accused was produced before the court of Judicial Magistrate but the prosecution did not state as to whether the incident occurred in the mode, manner and at the stated time---Court was to resolve that once the first information report was disbelieved and the witnesses did not support the charge in the manner it was laid, whether in that eventuality the only confessional statement of the accused would be sufficient for awarding conviction---Record transpired that soon the case was put in court against the acquitted charged accused, a compromise was reached between the parties where special oath was administered to all the three accused and the complainant after getting satisfied did not proceed with the matter---Complainant submitted that it was the choice of the complainant to withdraw from the charge against some of accused and to proceed against some, but it was not persuaded with what was submitted, as in the present case, while reporting the matter, the complainant and another posed themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the incident against the acquitted accused, but when they accepted the explanation regarding innocence of accused then no ambiguity was left that the incident did not occur in the manner as was given in the first information report---When the witnesses lost their credibility and the accused were acquitted of the charges then the same could not be taken into account against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused and that the impugned judgment was suffering from inherent defects which called for interference---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Withholding material evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be a money dispute---Record showed that it was true that soon after his arrest, the accused was produced before the court of Judicial Magistrate, where he confessed his guilt, but equally true that the prosecution was still to explain that how he was implicated and arrested in the case---Record showed that local police explained the way someone provided information, the way the accused was arrested and the manner in which the Kalashnikov in question was taken into possession---Court was to see, as to whether the prosecution succeeded through independent witnesses in establishing the arrest of the accused and his subsequent confession before the court of Judicial Magistrate---Neither the Investigating Officer examined said person on that particular aspect of the case, nor he was produced before the Trial Court in support of his claim---Foremost duty of the prosecution was to establish on record the manner in which the accused was arrested and the recovery was effected, but admittedly, the most important witness, i.e., said person was not produced and his non-production could not be read in benefit of the prosecution, rather it benefited the accused---Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, catered for the situation---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused and that the impugned judgment was suffering from inherent defects which called for interference---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statement---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Confessional statement was not recorded in an atmosphere which could persuaded that the accused by the time was composed and in comfort---Judicial Magistrate stated that the accused was produced by the local police who was given ample opportunity to think and after getting satisfaction he recorded his confessional statement---Though no major contradictions could be extracted from the witness, but the attending circumstances of the case right from arrest of the accused and his production before the court of Judicial Magistrate left no ambiguity that he was under an influence of the person who handed him over to the local police and with whom he was employed as a private servant---Even otherwise when the complainant of the case could not inspire confidence in respect of acquitted co-accused, then the manner in which the deceased lost his life could not be taken into account and even the sole confessional statement of the accused could not be taken a determining factor of his fate---Accused did not travel in an atmosphere of peace and serenity, so the disturbance of his mind and influence of his master was a factor which would go against the prosecution and as such that piece of evidence could not be taken into consideration---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed in bringing home guilt against the accused and that the impugned judgment was suffering from inherent defects which called for interference---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

UMER HAYAT vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 90 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported