Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI vs State Benefit of doubt

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 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of doubt when arising must be credited to the accused charged. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Record showed that on one hand, the information was received at 6:10 pm, whereas on the other the Medical Officer examined the injured at 6:03 pm, when the matter by then had not been reported---True that in case of injured witnesses the prime duty was to save their lives on priority instead of waiting for arrival of the concerned Police Official to report, but as in the instant case it was the scribe who stated that first the matter was reported in the shape of murasila, thereafter, he prepared the injury sheets and inquest reports followed by shifting the injured to the Medical Officer for their medical examination---If one went with what the scribe submitted, then all the three i.e. the complainant, scribe and the Medical Officer did not support one another on the aspect of occurrence of the case---Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased confirmed that one of the deceased was examined at 8:30 pm, whereas the other at 9:30 pm---Postmortem report depicted the time between injury and death as 20 minutes to 01 hour in case of one of the deceased---Said opinion of the Medical Officer further falsified the statement of the complainant---If it was admitted that the incident occurred at 5:30 pm and the report was made at 6:30 pm, then in that eventuality, the time between injury and death in case of one of the deceased did not lend support to the prosecution version---Prosecution failed to answer that when the deceased survived for long one hour, what precluded them to shift the deceased then injured to the hospital to save his life---Said fact could be interpreted in two different ways, either the complainant after receiving firearm injuries was shifted to the hospital after a considerable delay or the deceased, after receiving firearm injuries left the spot in injured condition---Circumstances did tell that the matter was reported after consultation and deliberation---Witnesses were not in unison on that particular aspect of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Motive was stated to be a property dispute between the parties and in that respect the acquitted co-accused had registered a FIR under S. 324, P.P.C., against the complainant of the present case---Complainant was cross-examined on such particular aspect of the case, who disclosed that the motive was between him and the acquitted co-accused---When the accused persons had nothing to do with the motive, then question was as to what motivated them with the acquitted co-accused to kill the deceased---Investigating Officer did not record statements of independent witnesses in support of motive alleged by the complainant---True that absence or weakness of motive alone was not a sufficient cause to disbelieve, but keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the present case, that too, when the sole purpose was landed property dispute, the prosecution was under obligation to prove the same, failing which none else but the prosecution would suffer---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Case of cross-firing---Suppression of facts by complainant--- Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Record showed that Mr. "I" posed himself to have seen the incident, but the complainant did not mention his presence on the spot at the time of incident---Witnesses disclosed that after firing on them, all the accused went inside the house of Mr. "F"---Inside the house, accused persons fired, and as a result of their firing one of the accused got injured---Complainant never ever stated the source of his information in respect of the injury caused to injured accused---Said disclosure on part of the complainant twisted the prosecution story and there were no hesitation in holding that in fact there was cross firing between the parties which resulted into injuries from both sides---When the complainant admitted injury on person of the accused and when nothing was brought on record to convince that the same was self-inflicted, it could form and only one opinion that the real facts were suppressed---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence contradicting prosecution case---Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Postmortem reports and Medico-Legal Certificates, showed that each of the deceased received a single firearm injury and such was also the case with the injured---If all the accused duly armed had fired with the only intention to kill, the situation would have been different with multiple injuries to all the victims---Fact could not be ignored that all injuries on injured witnesses landed on non-vital parts of their bodies---Had the intention been to kill, then the accused would have easily eliminated their targets, but the circumstances suggested that it was the doing of a single person---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding best witnesses---Effect---Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Record showed that out of five injured witnesses, three were not produced and another important witness Mr. "I", on whose pointation the site plan was prepared, was neither mentioned in the calendar of witnesses, nor produced before the Court despite the fact he claimed to have witnessed the incident---Conduct displayed by the prosecution by not producing the most important witnesses had damaged the prosecution case and an inference could easily be drawn that the abandoned eye-witnesses were not ready to support false claim of the complainant---In such circumstances, Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could be pressed into service---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused doubtful---Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Record showed that after the arrest of accused, a Kalashnikov was allegedly recovered from his house on his pointation, but neither the Investigating Officer nor all concerned could collect any evidence on record to substantiate that the house in question was in the sole ownership of the said accused or that the room wherefrom the weapon of offence was recovered was in exclusive possession of the said accused---Even the record was silent regarding the safe custody of the weapon and its safe transmission to the Firearms Expert for analysis---Another intriguing aspect of the case was that on the day of incident, the house of the said accused was searched but nothing incriminating was recovered---More so, it was for the Seizing Officer to tell that once they failed to recover the weapon despite thorough search, that too, on the day of incident, how they succeeded in recovering the same the following day---Recovery of the weapon on pointation of the accused was shrouded in mystery and the prosecution could not succeed in resolving the same---In such eventuality, such piece of evidence had lost its efficacy and could not be taken into consideration, that too, to convict the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State S. 342---Examination of accused---Scope---Every incriminating piece of evidence must be put to the accused charged, failing which the same will lose its evidentiary value. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(vi), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, causing badi'ah, munaqqillah, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in statements of witnesses and report of complainant---Accused were charged for launching murderous assault on the complainant party by firing at them with their respective weapons, as a result of which complainant and six other persons sustained fire arm injuries, while two succumbed to their injuries on the spot---Investigating Officer, after receiving copy of F.I.R, reached to the spot at 8:30 pm and on pointation of one Mr. "I", the site plan was prepared---Prosecution had to tell that when Mr. "I" was present in the hospital, as it was he who identified the dead body before the police at the time of report and before the doctor at the time of postmortem examination, it was he who received the dead bodies after postmortem examination---Record showed that the postmortem examination was completed at 9:30 pm and that right from beginning till end, Mr. "I" was shown present in the hospital---Surprisingly, in such circumstances how could Mr. "I" be present on the spot at the same time---Investigating Officer stated that on reaching the spot many people were present, out of them one came forward, whose hands and clothes were besmeared with blood and introduced himself as Mr. "I" and claimed to have seen the incident---On one hand, the explanation rendered by the Investigating Officer did not appeal to a prudent mind and on the other, the name of that witness was neither mentioned in the calendar of witnesses nor his statement was recorded---Statements of the witnesses in respect of arrival of the dead-bodies along with injured witnesses to the hospital and their subsequent examination by the doctor when read in juxtaposition with report made by the complainant, the same contradicted each other and in turn damaged the prosecution case beyond repair, more particularly, affected veracity of the witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FARZAND ALI vs State Benefit of doubt — 2023 YLR 2374 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR