DAD MUHAMMAD vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1595 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

DAD MUHAMMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 147 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Interested and inimical witnesses---Accused were charged for committing murder of the complainant's brother and nephews and a labourer due to previous enmity---Two witnesses stated in their statements before the Court that they were laborers with the complainant at his shop---On the day of occurrence, the accused, along with co-accused armed with Kalashnikovs, made firing upon the deceased and injured---Both the said witnesses were highly interested and inimically deposed against the accused---First reason for disbelieving them was that their presence on the spot was unnatural because had they been present at the spot, they would have received some injuries from the shots fired by the accused---Thus, it appeared that said witnesses had tried to suppress their interestedness---Both the said witnesses did not justify their presence at the place of occurrence---Suppose the statements of the said witnesses were believed to be true; in that case, the question would arise as to why and how the accused and co-accused spared them and did not try to kill them when they could have easily killed them because they were empty-handed and at their mercy, coupled with the fact that they could depose against them as eye-witnesses being relatives of the deceased---Mode and manner of the occurrence advanced by the prosecution witnesses were not appealable to a prudent mind---Another interesting feature of the case was that the accused had no motive to fire at one of the deceased (labourer at the shop of the complainant)--- According to the statements of the said so-called eye-witnesses, they were empty-handed, and they were totally at the mercy of the accused, but they were left alive, and the accused selected to kill the deceased, who had no enmity with the accused---Complainant stated in his report that the accused had previous enmity with them---Both the said witnesses were nephews of the complainant, so it could be inferred that the incident did not take place in the way and manner as it was alleged---Neither there was any dearth of ammunition nor that of intent and opportunity on the part of the accused or co-accused for not doing away with the said witnesses, their main adversaries---In that scenario, it was hard to believe that the said witnesses would have been shown the courtesy of being not fired at all when they should have been the prime targets of the assailants---Further, it was claimed by the prosecution witnesses that as many as five accused persons in total made firing with Kalashnikovs at the time of occurrence and in the midst of this indiscriminate firing, the said witnesses did not receive even a single scratch on their persons during the whole occurrence---If the said witnesses had been present in the view of the assailants, they would not have been spared---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.

DAD MUHAMMAD vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1595 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR