MUSAFAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLRN 24 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.

MUSAFAR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by father and brother of the deceased---Both the witnesses had given a simple and consistent account of the incident, which took place in the field of landlord of the complainant, who could be deemed to be natural witnesses---Both of them had the stamp of injuries on their persons and, as such, their presence at the time of incident could not be doubted---Admittedly, the incident took place in a broad daylight and being close relative of the assailant, his identity was not difficult, particularly, in the absence of any visual hindrance as per site plan---Crime was reported within fifty (50) minutes in the hospital, about 2 kilometers away from Police Station, without any delay and the accused and his acquitted co-accused were specifically named as offenders for committing the crime---No reason was available to believe that the accused was falsely implicated or substituted for the real culprit---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Common intention---Applicability---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries---Record showed that the accused and his sister's son came to the crime scene duly armed with deadly weapons ostensibly to use them as preplanned---Nature of the weapon would legitimately lead to the inference that they were prepared to use them on the complainant party---Section 34, P.P.C., required that accused was one of the participator and the joint criminal action in the course of which the offence was committed---Emergence of the accused and his sister's son carrying firearms, on the crime scene and firing at the complainant party and fleeing from the spot together---Said conduct indicated the existence of pre-concert and they did share common intention in committing the crime and as such, the accused could not escape his liability with regard to the commission of offence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Weapon of offence was recovered from the possession of the accused---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries---No doubt, at the time of arrest, a Kalashnikov, alleged to have been used in the commission of offence, was recovered from personal possession of the accused, however, in the absence of its matching report with the crime empties, said recovery was of no help to the prosecution. Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Related and interested witnesses---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries---Motive attributed for the crime was dispute over domestic affairs---No doubt, the complainant and eye-witness were father and son inter-se and closely related to the deceased, however, it was equally true that accused was the real son of the complainant and step brother of the deceased---Nothing was on the record to indicate that said witnesses had inimical terms with the accused or they deposed falsely against him or that they were not present on the spot and were not in a position to identify him as one of the assailant---Mere relationship with a victim would not render the witnesses as interested, particularly, when the charge was brought against accused by his real father---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Non-production of witness who prepared site plan---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries---Defence objected that the injured witness on whose pointation, site plan was prepared and who claimed to be one of the eye-witness of the occurrence was not named as an eye-witness in the crime report and was not produced, which was fatal to the prosecution case---Statement of Investigating Officer revealed that the site plan was prepared by him at the instance of injured (given up being won over)---Said argument of the defence equally had no force as it had not been denied by the defence that the incident had not occurred on the place described by the prosecution---Site plan itself was not a substitutive piece of evidence which could be used to contradict or discredit the unchallenged evidence of the two eye-witnesses---True that witness at whose pointation, the site plan was prepared was not produced at trial being won over, however, the defence could not show any judgment in support of his plea that on that ground the site plan was to be ruled out of consideration---So far non-production of said witness concerned, it was observed that he could not be examined due to his immature understanding as was reflected from the order sheet, hence, it was neither fatal to prosecution case nor disadvantageous to it---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(vi) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-munaqqillah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Injured as a witness---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with son of his sister in furtherance of their common intention made firing upon the complainant party, due to which complainant, his two sons and one grandson sustained firearm injuries, however his one son succumbed to the injuries---Mere fact that the witnesses had received injuries would not by itself be indicative of their having told the truth---No absolute rule was available that an injured witness was not to be relied upon at all---Each case depended upon its own facts and circumstances and credibility of the injured witnesses was to be determined in the light thereof---Court one could not understand as to why a real father would bring a false charge against his innocent son and substitute him for the real culprit---Nothing was on the record to suggest even remotely that both the witnesses had not spoken the truth and had deliberately suppressed certain facts with an ulterior motive as pleaded by defence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

MUSAFAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLRN 24 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported