AMAN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2023 SCMR 723 SUPREME-COURT

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

AMAN ULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 337-D---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, jaifah---Reappraisal of evidence---Incident took place at 10:30 a.m.---Deceased and injured witness were firstly taken to DHQ Hospital where the matter was reported to the Police---First Information Report was lodged on the same day at 1:45 p.m.---Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 32 kilometers whereas as per the record the place of occurrence was one hour away from the DHQ Hospital---Thus, it can be said that FIR was lodged with promptitude---Promptness of FIR showed truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excluded possibility of deliberation and consultation---Occurrence took place in broad daylight and the parties were known to each other, therefore, there was no chance of misidentification---Ocular account in the case had been furnished by the complainant, who lived in the adjacent house; an inmate of the same house; and an resident of the same locality---Therefore, presence of said witnesses at the place of occurrence was natural---Prosecution witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be brought on record---Witnesses had given all necessary details of occurrence qua the date, time, place, name of accused, name of witnesses, manner of occurrence, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, the locale of injuries and the motive of occurrence---Injured witness sustained injuries during the occurrence, which had fully been supported by the medical evidence---Medical evidence available on the record further corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injury on the person of the deceased and injured was concerned---Counsel for the accused could not point out any plausible reason as to why the complainant would falsely involve the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had committed murder of his real brother---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---Weapon of offence recovered at the instance of the accused and the crime empties collected from the place of occurrence were separately sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the report was positive---Conviction of accused under sections 302(b), 324 & 337-D, P.P.C was maintained---Petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed and leave was refused.

AMAN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2023 SCMR 723 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR