TARIQ MEHMOOD alias ASIF KHAN vs State Ss — 2023 YLRN 13 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

TARIQ MEHMOOD alias ASIF KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Scribe, who registered the case and prepared the injury sheet and inquest report was not produced---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon husband of complainant, who was hit and died at the spot---Record showed that the complainant who reported the matter duly thumb impressed the same and during trial, she reiterated the contents of the FIR, so mere absence of the relevant witness would not be sufficient to say goodbye to that most important piece of evidence---Record told that the Trial Court made repeated efforts to procure the attendance of the witness, but his attendance could not be procured, as he was not willing to appear before the Court---Reluctance of said witness to appear before the Court could not be attributed to either side and as such, Court was not ready to put it to the benefit of one side and to the disadvantage of the other---Injury sheet and inquest report were duly endorsed by the doctor and confirmed by the witness who appeared before the court to verify the signature and handwriting of the concerned doctor---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence was confirmatory in nature and in case of direct eye-witness account, the same had a little role to play---When the prosecution failed to establish its case through trustworthy witnesses, then in that situation, the medical evidence gained importance. Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the spot at the relevant time was doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon husband of complainant, who was hit and died at the spot---Motive for the commission of offence was alleged to be previous blood feud---Complainant during her cross-examination stated that soon after the incident, the local police attracted to the spot---Complainant was contradicted by the Investigating Officer when he stated that on receiving copy of FIR, he reached to the place of incident, where the complainant was called from her house who came to the spot along with other people after fifty minutes of his arrival---Complainant was examined on that particular aspect of the case, who stated that she and other accompanied the Investigating Officer from police station to the spot---Said contradictions between the statements of those two witnesses left no ambiguity in mind that the complainant could not establish her presence on the spot at the time of incident---Allegedly, complainant visited the spot field with her deceased husband to sow some seeds, but record could not come across any such evidence which could tell that on the day of incident both the deceased and the complainant visited the spot field for the purpose---Investigating Officer admitted that no agricultural instrument was taken into possession nor any seed was lying on the spot---Investigating Officer disclosed that he did not record statements of any independent witnesses regarding the ownership of the property and even the complainant did not produce any revenue record to confirm her stance---Site-plan depicted and so admitted by the Investigating Officer that the spot fields were barren and no crop was available in the vicinity, what to say of sowing the same---Investigating Officer admitted that there were no signs of sowing the seeds in the fields---Keeping in view the shortest distance of the house of the complainant from the place of incident, the possibility could not be excluded that the complainant attracted to the spot when she was informed regarding the death of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon husband of complainant, who was hit and died at the spot---Involvement of the deceased in numerous cases was evident from the record---Even details of the same were asked from the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer---More particularly, during the days of incident, the deceased was a proclaimed offender---When the accused and the absconding co-accused had blood feud with the deceased then instead of killing the deceased, they would have also killed the complainant, as she was the sole surviving witness---No prudent mind would accept the choice exercised by the accused in killing the deceased and leaving the complainant, knowing the fact that she would depose against them before the court of law---Deceased was having a criminal history and enmities in the vicinity, so many people must be after his blood and in such eventuality, the possibility that he would have been killed by someone else when he was found all alone could not be ruled out---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account---Confliction---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon husband of complainant, who was hit and died at the spot---Medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account, as while reporting the matter, the complainant stated that when the accused and the absconding co-accused attracted to the spot, they hurled abuses at the deceased and thereafter fired at the deceased---Medical evidence told that the deceased received firearm entry wounds on his back with its exit on his chest, which belied the stance of the complainant---Had the incident occurred in the mode and manner, then in that eventuality, the deceased would have received firearm injuries on his chest and not on his back, as admittedly, the deceased was addressed by the accused before starting firing---When the complainant realized that blunder, she made an attempt to improve her statement and during her cross-examination, she stated that when the accused wanted to kill the deceased, he started fleeing from the spot and in that eventuality, the deceased received firearm injuries on his back---Such improvement on part of the complainant could be termed as a dishonest improvement made with the sole purpose to bring the medical evidence in line with the ocular account---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of two empties from the spot---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon husband of complainant, who was hit and died at the spot---Record showed that the collected empties were sent to the firearms expert wherefrom a positive opinion was received that those were fired from two different weapons---Prosecution wanted to take its benefit and submitted that the recoveries of two empties from the spot corroborated the statement of the complainant regarding the involvement of the accused and another---As the prosecution could not bring on record substantial evidence, so the collected empties being supportive in nature could not be taken into consideration to determine the fate of the accused, as the same could be taken into consideration only and only in support of direct ocular account, which was missing and as such, that important piece of evidence had lost its utility---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon husband of complainant, who was hit and died at the spot---Motive for the commission of offence was alleged to be previous blood feud---Neither the complainant nor the Investigating Officer could bring on record any evidence both oral as well as documentary to confirm the blood feud between the parties---Investigating Officer did not record statement of any independent witness in that respect---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Motive---Scope---Motive was a double-edged weapon, as it cuts either way---If motive could be the cause to kill then the same could be a cause for false implication---Weakness or absence of motive, in itself, is not sufficient to dislodge the prosecution case provided the prosecution succeeded in establishing its case through independent evidence. Special oath--- Scope--- No special oath could be administered and if administered, the same had no utility and could not be taken into consideration.

TARIQ MEHMOOD alias ASIF KHAN vs State Ss — 2023 YLRN 13 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported