Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1305 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MANSOOR KHAN vs State Injured witness

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 YLR 1305 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MANSOOR KHAN VS State Injured witness---Scope---No doubt, stamp of injuries shows the presence of injured at the spot, but it is not a guarantee that he/she is a truthful witness---Court has to evaluate the intrinsic worth of statement of the injured witness by considering the circumstances of each and every case. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1305 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MANSOOR KHAN VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Improvements by the witnesses---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which five persons were hit, out of which two died---Prosecution case was based upon the ocular account furnished by injured-complainant and injured witness---Complainant in his initial report as well as in his Court statement stated that he was with his deceased brother, another deceased and injured---Injured witness was nephew of complainant and both were the residents of village, District "N", while the accused and the co-accused were the residents of village, District "P" and there was no relationship/friendship whatsoever in between the complainant and all the accused, but, despite that the complainant charged all the accused by name in his initial report i.e. murasila and Court statement---Complainant in his initial report stated that all the accused were armed with "Aslaha Atasheen" and started firing at person "K" as well as at them and that he, the two deceased, injured and passerby (injured) were shifted by "A" and others to the hospital and that besides him, the occurrence was also witnessed by injured---Complainant in his initial report had not disclosed the purpose of his visit to a 'Stop' and during cross-examination he also stated that he did not know that for which purpose they were coming to the said 'Stop', however, he volunteered that they were coming to their vehicle, even then he did not disclose the description of his vehicle and the later portion of his statement came within the definition of improvement---As per complainant, he along with his companions were coming in a Rickshaw and when they reached the place of occurrence, they deboarded from the rickshaw in order to separate the parties i.e. accused party and one "K" group but, the prosecution did not bother to record the statement of driver of Rickshaw, who was admittedly co-villager of complainant, and the Investigating Officer had not taken into possession the said Rickshaw, which could prove and establish the version of complainant---Complainant in his report stated that all the accused were armed with Aslaha Atasheen, however, in cross-examination he stated that all the accused had fired indiscriminately and continued for 04/05 minutes and that the pistols were automatic and the firing was rapid and the assertion regarding firing with automatic pistols was for the reason that during spot inspection, the Investigating Officer recovered one empty of .30 bore---Complainant in his cross-examination further stated that they remained on the spot after firing for 04/05 minutes and then they were shifted to the hospital in an ambulance which was available on the spot and that blood was also oozing in the vehicle in which they were shifted to the hospital---Availability of ambulance at the crime spot at the relevant time was a question mark and not appealable to a prudent mind as no blood was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer from the vehicle---Even statement of its driver had also not been recorded to establish the prosecution version---Complainant in his cross-examination had further stated that "K" was also fired at by all the accused, but despite indiscriminate firing for 04/05 minutes as per complainant version, "K" did not receive a single injury or a scratch despite that the altercation was between "K" and the accused party, which was not believable and fit in the natural probabilities---Furthermore "K" had not been produced by the prosecution to prove the fact that a quarrel/altercation took place in between him and the accused party and that the complainant party intervened between them for their separation---Complainant stated that the firing continued for 04/05 minutes while injured in his cross-examination stated that the accused had fired for 15 minutes with their respective pistols---Passerby also sustained firearm injuries in the present occurrence, but, the prosecution did not bother to produce him before the Court and record his statement in order to corroborate the prosecution version---Complainant stated that the accused also fired at "K" while injured stated that "K" was not at all fired at---Medico-Legal Report of injured revealed that the injured was conscious at the time of his examination by the doctor, however, said injured in his court statement stated that he was seriously injured and was unconscious---Complainant as well as injured witness in their statements had stated that the firing continued for about 04/05 and 15 minutes respectively and the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination stated that the shops shown in the site plan did come in the firing range, but, he had not noted any firing marks on the walls of the said shops---In this case four accused had been charged for the commission of offence---Investigating Officer during spot inspection recovered only one empty of .30 bore from the crime spot while the complainant charged four persons attributing to them the role of firing with pistols while the injured witness and complainant in their respective statements had stated that the firing continued for about 4/5 to 15 minutes, which was unbelievable and also went to the roots of the prosecution case and element of exaggeration and false implication could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1305 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MANSOOR KHAN vs State Injured witness — 2023 YLR 1305 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR