MOULA BUX alias MOLU vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 270 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.

MOULA BUX alias MOLU VS State Ss. 302, 324, 353, 392, 397 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account--- Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused persons snatched mobile phones and cash from the complainant and when police chased them, they made firing upon the police party, due to the firing one Police Constable, one passerby and a child got injured and Police Constable succumbed to injuries---Complainant as eye-witness registered the FIR promptly against unknown persons who had robbed him and who then alerted the police to the robbery who entered into an encounter with the robbers whilst they were escaping on their motor bike---Complainant gave his evidence to similar effect and noted in his FIR that the robbers were Baloch and were young and he could recognize them if he had seen them again---Complainant did not give any hulia of the robbers who also fired upon the police in his FIR---admittedly, it was a day time incident and complainant ought to have got a good look at the robbers however, the robbers were not apprehended until six years after the incident---When the robbers which included the accused appeared before an identification parade held by the Judicial Magistrate the eye-witness was not able to identify the accused as being one of the robbers due to lapse of over eight years since the incident---Complainant was declared hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution whereby he denied that he refused to identify the accused because he was afraid---Said eye-witness was not able to correctly identify the robbers including the accused who also had an encounter with the police and caused the death of the deceased by firearm and as such his evidence was of no relevance in determining whether the accused was one of the persons who committed the offence so charged---Other eye-witness was a Police Officer who was present with the deceased at the time of the incident---Said witness gave no hulia of the accused and did not even say in either his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. or evidence that he could recognize the dacoits if he had seen them again---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MOULA BUX alias MOLU vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 270 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR