MUHAMMAD QASIM vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2343 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 QASIM VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(vi), 504, 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr - jaifah - munaqqillah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Delay of thirty nine hours in lodging the FIR plausibly exaplained---accused were charged for assaulting the complainant party, due to which the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant died, whereas complainant and his nephew sustained injuries---Record showed that the FIR was delayed by 39 hours and no explanation was furnished by the complainant party---Complainant in his examination-in-chief had deposed that he arranged the vehicle and shifted the injured persons to poliçe station wherefrom injured were referred to a hospital for treatment, and them again they were referred to Civil Hospital and on the second day his brother-in-law died---after the formalities at hospital complainant along with the witnesses approached police station where aSI was present, who told them that WHC was not available and he would come after one hour and on his arrival FIR was registered---Complainant was himself injured and was busy in the treatment, thus, his first priority would be to save the lives of the injured persons instead of lodging the FIR---In view thereof, the delay if any was explained and was not fatal to the prosecution under the said facts and circumstances of the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD QASIM VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(vi), 504, 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Minor contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Not consequential---accused were charged for assaulting the complainant party, due to which the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant died, whereas complainant and his nephew sustained injuries---Prosecution examined two eye-witnesses, who fully supported the case of prosecution on each and every aspect---Said witnesses were cross-examined but no major contradiction was found in their evidence---Defence pointed out some minor contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, which were due to the passage of time and the same occurred in each and every case and were not sufficient to hold that the case of prosecution was doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD QASIM VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(vi), 504, 114, 147, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Defence plea---accused were charged for assaulting the complainant party, due to which the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant died, whereas complainant and his nephew sustained injuries---Record showed that during cross-examination of the witnesses, initially the accused persons took defence that the people of "HR" group attacked upon complainant party and then they approached Mr. "M" for exoneration, subsequently Mr. "M" asked them to lodge case against the accused persons---Moreover, it was suggested that complainant party was kamdar of Mr. "M"---accused persons took another defence that it was a road accident and they had not committed any offence and then two Court Witnesses were examined before the Trial Court---Neither the Court Witnesses were eye-witness of the incident nor did they produce referral of the doctor or any police later which might show that it was a road accident---It was only stated by the court witnesses that they were informed by the attendant of the patient that due to road accident injured received the injuries---No doubt accused could take several defences during the trial but the same were subject to some legal weight---Benefit of weakness of defence could not be given to the prosecution in presence of established principle of law that the prosecution was duty bound to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt---None of the defence version was brought by the accused persons before the Investigation Officer during the investigation of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD QASIM VS State Sole evidence of material witness---Scope---Sole evidence of material witness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of accused, if the same is confidence inspiring and trustworthy supported with other independent source of evidence because law requires quality of evidence and not quantity to prove the charge. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD QASIM VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-F(vi), 504, 114, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, abettor present when offence was committed, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses---Reliance---accused were charged for assaulting the complainant party, due to which the brother and brother-in-law of the complainant died, whereas complainant and his nephew sustained injuries---Defence objected to the relationship of the witnesses with the deceased and pleaded that the witnesses were near relatives of the deceased and were interested therefore their evidence could not be relied upon---Validity---Such contention had no force as in the instant matter, the eye-witnesses had sufficiently explained the date, time and place of occurrence, as well as each and every event of the occurrence---Parties were known to each and it was a day time incident, so there was no chance of mistaken identity of the accused persons---Particularly, the witnesses themselves received the injuries at the hands of the accused persons and the medical evidence in that respect was supportive---Mere fact that a witness was closely related to the accused or deceased or he was not related to either party was not a sole criteria to judge his independence or to accept or reject his testimony rather the true test was whether the evidence of a witness was probable and consistent with the circumstances of the case or not---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD QASIM vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR