Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT VS State S. 412---Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that the snatched motorcycle was recovered from the possession of the accused---Prosecution in order to establish the charge had produced complainant, recovery witness and Investigating Officer---Comparative study of statements of all the said three prosecution witnesses would establish the case it was absolutely a defective case and no proper investigation in the matter had been carried out---According to the case of prosecution the alleged motorcycle was owned by "S", from whom the motorcycle was stolen and in order to establish that fact as to actually the motorcycle was stolen from him or otherwise, his association in the investigation and his examination in the Trial Court was essential in order to eliminate all the ambiguities, but the Investigating Officer ignored that fact and neither associated the said important witness in the investigation process nor produced him before the Trial Court, which had created reasonable doubts in the case of prosecution---Soon after stealing of motorcycle, the complainant lodged FIR at Police Station and it was confirmed to the complainant through CPLC that the motorcycle was stolen from the area of Karachi, thus soon after its recovery the Police Authorities concerned should have approached the concerned police station for handing over the possession of motorcycle and the custody of the accused in order to conduct the trial and also the witnesses of case should have been arrayed as witnesses in the already registered case, but that had not been done so and illegally and without any justification second FIR was lodged---In continuation of preceding FIR, it had been observed that the FIR showing the engine number of motorcycle as 940308 instead of engine No.R-940308 mentioned in the FIR as well as chassis number mentioned in FIR No.473 of 2021 as 622939 instead of Chassis No.EB622939 in FIR No.53 of 2021---Engine and chassis numbers of motorcycle mentioned in FIR did not match with engine and chassis numbers mentioned in the FIR---In that behalf there was no explanation made by the prosecution---Even otherwise, the ownership documents of case property had not been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer---All such glaring contradictions had rendered the case of prosecution as doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Paras. 5, 6 & 7 of the judgment]

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 98 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported