Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs State S

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 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the spot at the time of occurrence doubtful--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic--- Record showed that the complainant could not explain that at what time and where-from they left for the clinic---Even the Investigating Officer did not explain in the site plan the presence of the daughter and even the presence of the doctor concerned---Astonishingly, the complainant, while reporting the matter, did not explain the presence of the eye-witness, and it was at the tale end of his report that he mentioned the said witness, as the eye-witness---Complainant could not explain as to whether the eye-witness disclosed his purpose on the spot and as to whether the eye-witness had reached, the moment they reached the clinic---Complainant made constant improvements and stated that soon after the deceased received the firearm injuries, he breathed his last, and thereafter, he informed his relatives who approached the place of incident and the dead body was shifted to the hospital---Surprisingly, when the complainant along with the eye-witness and other people were present on the spot, then what need was felt for the presence of the relatives---Said fact suggested that in fact the complainant was not present at the time of incident, and that it was after arrival of the dead body at the hospital that he along with the co-villagers reached the hospital---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of incriminating material from the spot---Reliance---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---In the present case, the Investigating Officer visited the spot and recovered one empty of .30 bore from the place of incident along with blood stained earth from the place of the deceased---Investigating Officer also prepared site plan on pointation of the complainant---Though the site plan was prepared and the places of the deceased, eye-witness and the acquitted co-accused were mentioned therein, but no empties of 7.62 bore were recovered from the places of acquitted co-accused---Even the Investigating Officer did not take into possession the motorcycle belonging to the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding best evidence---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---Record showed that the scribe stated that though he drafted the murasila but the injury sheet and inquest report were prepared by one Mr. "U", on his dictation--- Surprisingly, said Mr. "U" was not produced as the prosecution witness---When Mr. "U", being the most important witness was abandoned, then what value could be attached to the documents he prepared---When the best available evidence was not produced, then prosecution had to suffer---Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, in the shape of Art. 129(g) had accorded protection to the accused and the benefit of the situation must be extended to the one charged---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---Motive was stated to be the political rivalry between the parties, but the record was silent as to what status the deceased had, which prompted the accused to kill him and even the complainant failed to bring on record material evidence in that respect---Investigating Officer did not investigate the case on that particular line and even no independent witnesses were examined in that respect---Weakness or absence of a motive will not knock out the prosecution from contest, but it can not be ignored that once the motive is alleged and not proved, then it is the prosecution which has to suffer---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of the witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---In the present case, when both the statements, one recoded by the Investigating Officer and the other recorded by the eye-witness during trial, were placed in juxtaposition, there was no hesitation to hold that the eye-witness did not remain natural and consistent to his previously recorded statement and the improvements found in his Court statement were dishonest which had put a question mark on his integrity---Prosecution had to explain that when the deceased died on the spot, then what compelled them to go to the hospital to report the matter despite the fact the police station was lying at a closer distance and also one had to pass the police station to reach the hospital---Abnormal conduct displayed by the witnesses confirmed their absence at the time of incident, which left no other opinion but to deduce that at the time of incident the deceased was all alone who after receiving firearm injuries died on the spot and his dead body was shifted to the hospital by the people of the adjoining houses, where the matter was kept pending and it was on arrival of the complainant and the eye-witness, from their village that the matter was reported---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---Plea of alibi---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---Accused took the plea of alibi, stating therein that a day before the occurrence he was in custody of the police of another Police Station as his motor car was taken from his possession under S.550, Cr.P.C---Investigating Officer visited the concerned Police Station and recorded statements of all concerned including the Police Officials who arrested the accused and of an Advocate with whom the accused and two others stayed for a night---No doubt, the documents regarding interception of the motorcar were produced and placed on file and no doubt, the concerned witnesses stated of his confinement in the police lockup, but that alone was not sufficient to substantiate the claim of the accused rather the accused in order to prove his presence there, must have produced reliable witnesses and reliable documents---Documents so produced could not be taken into consideration in support of his plea of alibi---Court is to determine as to whether the plea taken and not proved would weigh against the accused---No ambiguity that if an accused takes a plea regarding his innocence and if he does not succeed to prove the same, it can not be taken against him, as the prosecution is still under the bounded duty to establish its charges and the burden never shifs--However, when an accused takes the plea of right of self-defence then in that situation the accused is under the obligation to prove the same failing which the Court, dealing with the matter, can take it into consideration against the accused charged, but in the present case the situation was otherwise as it was the prosecution which had to establish its case through cogent, convincing and trustworthy witnesses and the burden never shifted to the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence--- Medical evidence and ocular account---Contradiction---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---Medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account with respect to the seat of injury---Inter se comparison of what the complainant stated and what the doctor opined, was sufficient to hold that the medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution---True, that medical evidence is confirmatory in nature and in case where the ocular account is trustworthy and confidence inspiring, it cannot be taken into account to discredit the eye-witness account--- In case the eye-witnesses fails to convince then in that eventuality it is the medical evidence that steers the wheel---In the present case, the conflict between the two suggested that the incident did not occur in the mode, manner alleged and it also raised an eyebrow over the conduct and presence of the complainant at the time of incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Delay of one and a half hour in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---Record showed that the occurrence took place at 5:30 p.m., and the report was made at 7:00 p.m., whereas the distance between the spot and the hospital was stated to be two furlongs---In such situation, there should not have been an abnormal delay and instead the dead body should have reached the hospital much earlier than the stated time---Explanation so rendered for the delay did not fit with the facts of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing in a clinic---Eye-witness stated that on the day of incident, he was present at the place of occurrence owing to his personal engagement, though initially, he did not explain that what brought him to the place of incident, but it was during his cross-examination he stated that earlier he had brought wheat to the adjacent grinding mill and he was waiting as the grinding mill was closed by the time---Surprisingly, the complainant was not certain regarding the engagements the eye-witness had at the time of incident, and even the eye-witness could not explain the same---Regarding presence of the eye-witness, the Investigating Officer stated that the eye-witness did not explain the purpose of his presence and even no wheat belonging to the eye-witness was either seen or taken into possession---It was intriguing on part of the eye-witness and even the Investigating Officer that the miller was neither associated with the process of investigation, nor his name was put in the calendar of witnesses, so much so, his statement was not recorded---Eye-witness failed to explain his presence on the spot, as no relevant witness in that respect was examined---Record showed that the incident occurred on the 3rd day of Eid and it was not normal that on the 3rd day of Eid, the eye-witness ran short of flour for which he rushed to the grinding mill---Even the Investigating Officer was examined on that particular aspect of the case, who confirmed that being Friday, the grinding mill was closed---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove guilt of the accused---Appeal against the conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs State S — 2023 YLR 2266 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR