NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2292 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.

NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(ii), 114, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material evidence---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---As far as the objection raised by the defence with regard to given-up witnesses, it is true that withholding of important evidence led to an adverse inference against the prosecution keeping in view Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---However, such suggestion was not helpful to the accused, as the prosecution had brought concrete material to prove its charge against the accused and nothing adverse had been proved to discard the evidence produced by the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(ii), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witness at the spot justified---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Defence objected that eye-witness was resident of a place, which was some 40 kilometers away from the place of incident, hence his presence at the spot was doubtful---Validity---Since the said witness was admittedly cousin of the complainant and the deceased, therefore, he could not be termed as chance witness, as a cousin could always visit his family members living even at a distance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses--- Inconsequential--- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Allegedly, the eye-witnesses were near relatives of the deceased but they had sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence as well as each and every event of the occurrence---Where the witnesses fell within the category of natural witnesses and narrated the details of the incident in a confidence-inspiring manner, then only escape available to the accused was to satisfactorily establish that witnesses were not the truthful witnesses but interested ones--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Acquittal of co-accused on the same set of facts---Role of accused distinct from the acquitted co-accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Perusal of FIR clearly showed that the complainant had stated that acquitted co-accused was unarmed and the only accusation against him was that he instigated the other co-accused to kill the deceased---Trial Court had also dilated on that point and had stated that acquitted co-accused was about 65 years of age at the time of incident and keeping in view his health condition, the trial Court observed that it was hardly possible that he would come to the place of occurrence just to instigate co-accused for committing the offence---When a party of about six persons was coming with a common intention to kill a person, it made no sense that although each member of the party was duly armed with some type of weapons, but one of them was empty-handed---Complainant himself stated that while the other five members of the accused party were fully armed with firearm weapons, the acquitted co-accused was unarmed---Apart from that, the complainant had also given specific role to the accused that he fired at deceased, which hit him in his head and the bullet went through and through---However, no such overt role had been attributed to acquitted co-accused---Thus, it could not be said that on the same set of facts one accused had been acquitted while the other had been convicted and sentenced---It had been proved by prosecution witnesses and medical as well as circumstantial evidence that accused fired the fatal shot, which killed the deceased, but there was nothing against the acquitted co-accused---Hence, it could not be said that the case of the two was identical---Acquittal of co-accused would be of no help to the present accused, as the role assigned to the two was entirely different--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved of its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in lodging FIR---Inconsequential---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Delay in lodging of the FIR had been fully explained, as the deceased after sustaining injuries was shifted to Police Station, wherefrom a letter for his treatment was obtained then he was rushed to hospital and the Medico-Legal Officer, keeping in view his condition, referred him to other hospital, where he breathed his last---In such a situation, when a person was fighting for his life, it could not be expected that his relatives would leave him in such a precarious condition and would go to the police station and lodge an FIR---Even, in such case, it would be difficult to lodge a proper FIR, as the fate of the injured was yet to be determined i.e. whether he survived the assault or he succumbed to his injuries---Thus, the delay so occasioned in lodgment of FIR in the present case had been fully explained and that plea was not helpful to the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(ii), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Day light occurrence---No question of mistaken identity---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Alleged incident took place at about 8.30 a.m. in the month of August so there was ample light and the accused was also known to the complainant party, therefore, no question of mistaken identity of the accused had arisen---Moreover, it was also not possible that the complainant party would nominate innocent persons for the murder of their relative and would allow the real culprit(s) to go scot-free when there was no doubt that deceased died unnatural death as proved by the medical evidence, which had gone unchallenged---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present at the time of crime, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account supported by medical evidence--- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Prosecution case mainly rested on the ocular testimony of eye-witness, who was complainant of the case and another eye-witness---Complainant had stated in his evidence that when they were getting fuel at a petrol pump the accused arrived there and fired at deceased, which hit him on his right side of temple and the bullet exited from his forehead---Complainant stated that accused also fired at the deceased, which hit his right side of lower leg---Same version of the incident was given by another eye-witness---There was no contradiction between the versions of two eye-witnesses of the incident---Both the prosecution witnesses deposed on the same line and their evidence could not be shattered while they were subjected to cross-examination---Ocular evidence of the two eye-witnesses was fully supported by the evidence of the Medico-Legal Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State Witness---Interested witness testimony of---Reliance---Interested witness is not one who is relative or friend of the deceased, but is one who has a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State acquittal on same set of facts---Scope---On the same set of facts one accused can not be convicted when the other accused is acquitted. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO VS State absconsion--- Scope--- Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural and substantive law and noticeable abscondence disentitles the absconder from the concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case---If a person absconds from law and remains a fugitive then a negative inference can be made against him, unless his abscondence is explained.

NIAZ HUSSAIN SOOMRO vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR