Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUNEEB HASSAN vs State Ss

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 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUNEEB HASSAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime empties from the spot---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---In the present case three persons were charged for effective firing at the deceased with firearms---During the spot inspection 18 empties of Kalashnikov were secured from a point shown in the site plan which had been shown in front of the accused---Investigation Officer had admitted that Kalashnikov ejected its empties towards its right side---If three persons were charged for firing without specifying the role of each accused and when the empties were not sent to the expert by the Investigating Officer, then it could be safely assumed that it was doing of one man---By looking at the dimension of the injuries i.e. all the entry wounds were of ¼ x ¼ inches in size---Not sending alleged crime empties to the Forensic Science Laboratory made the same doubtful and such recovery could not be relied upon for purpose of conviction---Moreso, said piece of evidence was a corroborative one and in a case where direct evidence failed, corroborative piece of evidence was of no avail, same as in the instant case where direct evidence of witnesses had already been disbelieved---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUNEEB HASSAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the witnesses at the spot doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Record showed that the house of the complainant was situated at a distance of 300/400 meters from the Masjid as well as from the Hujra of the deceased where they offered Asar prayer before the occurrence---Likewise, the mosque was also available close to the house of another eye-witness and he had stated that he normally performed his prayer in the Mosque "A" which was near to their house and he used to perform his prayers in routine over there---Prosecution had tried to show the presence of said witnesses at the relevant time but the same had not been proved for the reason that both the witnesses were residing far away at a considerable distance from the Hujra of the deceased---Complainant had further stated that they were present in Hujra from noon time till Asar time while on the contrary other eye-witness had stated that he was present in the Hujra of the deceased since morning---No one from the Mosque even the Pesh Imam had been examined to prove the presence of the witnesses along with the deceased at the time of Asar prayers---Story of the prosecution on which the entire superstructure of the prosecution case was erected appeared to be false and did not stand to reason---Allegedly the report was made within 45 minutes of the occurrence but it was in the statement of eye-witness that it consumed three hours from the occurrence till lodging of the FIR---Thus, the time of the report as alleged by the prosecution seemed to be incorrect and that's why inspite of the fact the deceased was dead, he was not taken to the police station and was shifted to Civil Hospital, therefore, there was no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the presence of the witnesses at the spot---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUNEEB HASSAN VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of even a slight doubt is to be extended in favour of the accused. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUNEEB HASSAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the maternal uncle of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be previous blood feud enmity between the parties---Record showed that it was the case of prosecution that on the eventful day at 04:05 p.m. complainant party was present in front of the Hujra of the deceased and were busy in gossiping, in the meantime, accused along with the acquitted co-accused and the absconding co-accused came there duly armed with firearms and started indiscriminate firing at the deceased, as result whereof the deceased got hit and sustained injuries---Site plan of the Hujra of the deceased showed that the same comprised of rooms, veranda and courtyard as well---Thus, there was no occasion for the deceased and the witnesses to be present in the thoroughfare for the purpose of chatting when the gate of the Hujra was quite close to the point where the deceased had been shown to be present at the time of occurrence---Even otherwise when deceased and witnesses were locked in intense enmity their presence in the thoroughfare did not appeal to a prudent mind---In the site plan the deceased had been shown on one side of the road while the complainant and witnesses had been shown at the other side---If they were present for the purpose of gossiping then they should have been close to each other instead of standing at a considerable distance from each other---Another feature of the case was ages of the witnesses and the deceased---Deceased was aged about 75/76 years and the complainant was aged about 47/48 years while eye-witness was aged about 38 years---Deceased and witnesses were from different age groups and their assemblage at that point of time for the purpose of gossiping was also repellent to common sense keeping in view the difference between their ages---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUNEEB HASSAN vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 2462 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR