AIJAZ KATOHAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2432 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.

AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account, reliance upon---Accused were charged for committing murderous assault on complainant party, due to which, the sister and niece of the complainant were hit and his sister died---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses including complainant---Complainant supporting the averments of FIR narrated the facts---Similar disclosure had been made by other eye-witness in his evidence further adding that his statement was recorded by the police---Both the said witnesses identified the accused and the case property present in Court to be same---Both these eye-witnesses were cross-examined by defence at length but nothing favorable to the present accused came out from their mouth---Evidence of the said witnesses was found reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring in nature---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence itself does not throw any light over identity of the offender---Such evidence confirms the available substantive evidence concerning certain facts including the seat of injury, nature of injury, cause of death, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, duration between injuries and death and presence of an injured witness or the injured accused at place of occurrence but it reflects no connectivity of accused with commission of the offence---Medical evidence can not constitute corroboration for proving involvement of accused persons in commission of the offence, as it does not establish identity of the accused. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Circumstantial evidence---Accused were charged for committing murderous assault on complainant party, due to which, the sister and niece of the complainant were hit and his sister died---Duty Officer examined by the prosecution deposed that on arrival and disclosure of facts of cognizable offence by the complainant, he recorded his FIR and then inspected dead body of deceased and injuries on the injured, recovered blood stained pieces of quilt, bed sheet and four empties of .12 bore from the venue of occurrence and also took custody of both accused and guns from the complainant party together with recovery of four live cartridges of 12 bore from each accused and then prepared certain documents/mashirnamas in presence of mashirs---Said witness also recorded S. 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses---On return to police station, said witness also registered separate FIRs against the accused under Sindh Arms Act, 2013---Further, said witness dispatched the recovered weapons to concerned Ballistic Expert who on its examination reported that the empties sent to the Laboratory on examination were fired from the guns which were secured from possession of present accused while the blood stained pieces of quilt and bed sheet on chemical analysis by Chemical Laboratory were found to have been stained with human blood---Said witness identified both the present accused and case property present in Court to be same---Like disclosure had been endorsed by mashir in his evidence which in all was supportive of the ocular account furnished by the complainant party---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Direct evidence---Scope---Direct evidence is always material to decide the charge---Failure of direct evidence is always sufficient to hold a criminal charge as "not proved" but where the direct evidence holds the field and stands the test of it being natural and confidence-inspiring then the requirement of independent corroboration is only a rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Motive--- Scope--- Matrimonial dispute---Motive is always a double-edged weapon---No doubt a dispute over matrimonial affairs could be a reason for an accused to commit the alleged crime but it could equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate him in the case on account of a previous grudge. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 452, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, house trespass, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence--- Statements of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murderous assault on complainant party, due to which, the sister and niece of the complainant were hit and his sister died---Evidence produced by the prosecution was put to the accused in their statements recorded in terms of S. 342, Cr.P.C., wherein both the accused also admitted the motive set forth by the prosecution that they were implicated in murder case on account of matrimonial dispute---All these factors prima-facie established a charge against the accused---Both the accused in their statements did not desire to examine themselves on oath, nor led any evidence in their defence in rebuttal of prosecution evidence, which fully proved the charge against them beyond shadow of a reasonable doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt by producing reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case AIJAZ KATOHAR VS State Witness---Testimony of sole witness---Scope---Sole evidence of a material witness i.e. an eye-witness is always sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused if the same is confidence-inspiring and trustworthy and supported by other independent source of evidence because the law considered the quality of evidence and not its quantity to prove the charge---However, the accused can be convicted if the Court finds the direct oral evidence of one eye-witness to be reliable, trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.

AIJAZ KATOHAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2432 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR