MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about three hours and thirty minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Complainant lodged FIR with the delay of 03 hours and 30 minutes---Complainant stated that he was not an eye-witness of the incident but was present in the High Court being a practicing lawyer---At about 11:30 am he received a mobile call from his brother that accused persons nominated in the FIR had committed the murder of his other brother in the agricultural land situated in village---On hearing such a story, he reached at RHC, where he had seen his brother lying dead in the mortuary and on the same day at about 02:15 pm he came to the police station and lodged the FIR against the accused persons nominated in the FIR---After the alleged incident the eye-witness of the incident had not shown the place of incident to complainant but only information was given to him---Whereas memo of the place of incident revealed that the same was prepared by Investigating Officer on the pointation of the complainant---After the incident, the dead body was shifted by the eye-witnesses to the RHC for its post-mortem and such information was not given to the SHO concerned---Medical Officer had deposed contrary to the evidence of said eye-witnesses and stated that he received the dead body of deceased at 12:30 noon times for post-mortem examination---Said witness further disclosed that the dead body was brought by Police Constable---Dead body was identified by the brother and cousin of the deceased not by the eye-witnesses---Investigating Officer deposed that at 02:30 pm complainant came to police station for registration of FIR against the accused persons---After registration of FIR, complainant visited the RHC---Dead body was shown by the complainant and prepared memo of injuries, so also prepared Danishtnama of the dead body---If the complainant had given the information to police at 02:30 pm then who had informed the police about the incident when the Medical Officer received the dead body 12:30 noon through Police Constable---Said facts showed that neither the eye-witness informed the police about the incident nor the Medical Officer had informed the police that one dead body was lying in his mortuary---High Court observed that all were waiting for the complainant to prepare the case against the accused persons---First Information Report in question had been lodged after about three hours and thirty minutes and thus, a possibility regarding deliberation before lodging of the FIR could not safely be ruled out of consideration---Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Confessional statement of accused--- Infirmities--- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Confessional statement of accused in which the Magistrate had not given the warning to the accused that in case he confessed or not, his custody would not be handed over to the Investigating officer/same police---Judicial Magistrate, in his evidence, tried to fill the lacuna by stating that he had informed him that if he would make or not make the confession, he would not be handed over to the same police---Confessional statement to be relied upon should not only be true, voluntary and believable but should be without fear, favour or any inducement---Documentary evidence shall prevail over the oral statement made at subsequent stage, contradicting the contents of the documents---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six days in recording confessional statement of accused---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Alleged confessional statement of the accused which was recorded after six days of his arrest could not be relied upon---Especially when five sons of the father had been booked in the murder case---From the perusal of the confessional statement, it appeared that if there was any dispute between the parties since 1984 then they did not kill the deceased and in the presence of both eye-witnesses killed him by leaving both the witness to depose against them---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Improvements in the medical evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---In the present case, the Medical Officer had made improvements and added six more injuries in the medical certificate---All the injuries received by the injured were external viz on the head and one injury on his face, but the Medical Officer first had written four injuries and then increased up to ten injuries---Normally the human head was admeasuring 8x8 inches---Injuries received by the deceased were not measured by Medical Officer nor had shown the distance between the injuries---Even the Medical Officer had not disclosed that after removing the hair from the head he had counted the injuries but High Court observed that on the direction of the complainant he had increased the number of injuries up to 10 injuries otherwise neither he had opened the abdomen nor thorax to believe that there were internal injuries and subsequently found the further injuries---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Prosecution was bound to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt---If a reasonable doubt noticed in the prosecution case, the benefit of same must be extended to the accused not as a grace or concession, but as a matter of right. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State S. 342---Statement of accused---Scope---If any incriminating piece of evidence was not put to accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., for his explanation, the same could not be used against him for his conviction. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Wider net, casting of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Eye-witnesses deposed that accused caused the sharp side of hatchet blows on the head of deceased---Other accused caused hatchet blows with sharp side on the head of deceased and the finger of his right hand---Another accused also caused hatchet's sharp side blows to deceased on his head and the first finger of the right hand---Co-accused also caused sharp side hatchet blow to deceased on his head and face---Other co-accused caused sharp side blows to deceased on his head and the palm of the right hand and after receiving the injuries deceased fell on earth and blood was oozing from his injuries---Circumstances suggested that, it was humanely impossible---Such fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that after receiving ten sharp cutting wounds on the head of the deceased, still deceased would remain in standing condition especially when he received all injuries on his head and face---At the time of the incident deceased was aged about 49 years old---Complainant and his witnesses were moving around at the place of the incident but they did not receive a single injury in the commission of the alleged offence nor did they try to save the brother---As stated by the eye-witnesses that all the five accused persons were inflicting hatchet injuries to the deceased on his head, in such a situation it was difficult to ascertain who caused which injury upon the deceased but the complainant had disclosed in detail the identification of a particular accused with a particular injury---Such was a typical culture of the society to throw the wide net to implicate as many family members as possible in the incident---Complainant had involved five sons and one father and had left no male member to pursue the case of accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Motive as set-up by the complainant in his FIR and other eye-witnesses that there was a dispute over the landed property but eye-witness of the incident in his cross-examination had denied the suggestion that the deceased filed different cases against the accused persons---Prosecution had failed to prove the motive against the accused persons hence, the real cause of occurrence remained shrouded in mystery---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 504 & 114---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot at the relevant time was doubtful---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows---Complainant and the eye-witnesses of the deceased were real brothers and both the eye-witnesses were chance witnesses who had failed to bring anything on the record to establish the stated reasons for their availability near the deceased at the relevant time---Reason shown by the eye-witness that he was asked by the deceased to bring a water but he could not submit any evidence to believe that he had brought the water---Eye-witnesses admitted that there were houses at the land of the deceased so also 20/25 houses were situated in village, but not a single independent person had been produced by the prosecution to receive independent corroboration in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

MUHAMMAD HASHIM SHAH vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1768 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR