IMRAN MEHMOOD vs State S — 2023 SCMR 795 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.

IMRAN MEHMOOD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Pre-meditated murder---Promptly lodged FIR---Daylight occurrence---Independent witnesses---Medical evidence corroborating ocular account---Motive proved---Positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory---Confession of guilt before Magistrate---In the present case, the crime report was lodged in the Casualty Ward of DHQ Hospital within an hour of the occurrence---Distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 7 kilometers whereas the distance between Police Station and DHQ Hospital, was 7.7 kilometers---Thus, it could be safely said that FIR was lodged with promptitude---Promptness of FIR, prima facie, showed truthfulness of the prosecution case and it excluded possibility of deliberation and consultation---Occurrence took place in the broad day light and the parties were known to each, therefore, there was no chance of misidentification---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and two court bailiffs---Said bailiffs of the Family Court were independent witnesses who went to the house of the accused in compliance with a decree passed by the Family Court---Witnesses of ocular account were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing favourable to the accused or adverse to the prosecution could be produced on record---Said 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---Counsel for the accused could not point out any reason as to why the complainant had falsely involved the accused in the present case and let off the real culprit, who had brutally murdered her father and uncle---Substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon---Said witnesses had reasonably explained the circumstances of their going to the house of the accused i.e. they went there to take the dowry articles pursuant to a decree issued by the Family Court---Medical evidence available on the record corroborated the ocular account so far as the nature, time, locale and impact of the injuries on the persons of the deceased is concerned---Neither the defence seriously disputed the motive part of the prosecution story nor the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined on such aspect of the matter---In such circumstances, the prosecution had successfully proved the motive against the accused---Investigating Officer had collected four crime empties from the place of occurrence and accused was arrested on the same day after couple of hours of the occurrence along with the weapon of offence---Although, the weapon of offence and the crime empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory together on but as the accused was arrested on the same day, therefore, the same was of no help to him---According to the positive report of FSL, the empties were found fired from the weapon recovered from the accused---Accused confessed to his guilt before the Magistrate and the proper procedure was followed for such purpose---When the accused was confronted with such confessional statement while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. he did not deny the same but stated that the same was extracted by the Police by using force with connivance of complainant party and the same was not recorded under the requirements of law---However, such assertion was just an afterthought---Evidence available on record clearly suggested that the accused did not inform the Judicial Magistrate about the alleged coercion at the time of making his judicial confession, and also did not place on record any evidence to show that the Investigating Officer was inimical towards him and forced him to confess his crime---Even otherwise, if the confessional statement of the accused was excluded from consideration, there was sufficient material available on the record in the shape of unbiased and unimpeachable ocular account supported by medical evidence, motive and recovery to sustain conviction of the accused---Pursuant to the outcome of proceedings carried out in a Family Court, the accused knew that the complainant was coming to the house to take her dowry articles---Accused was duly armed with a pistol and consequent events reflected his mindset---Such evidence was sufficient to indicate premeditation of accused, therefore, he did not deserve any leniency in the death sentence awarded to him---Appeal was dismissed and death sentence awarded to accused was upheld.

IMRAN MEHMOOD vs State S — 2023 SCMR 795 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 SCMR