STATE through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs SAJID MUNIR Witness

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

STATE through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa VS SAJID MUNIR Witness---Credibility---Scope---Not necessary that there should be numerous infirmities; if there was one which impeached the credibility of the witness that might be made the entire statement doubtful. Benefit of doubt---Principle---accused was favourite child of law and he had a presumption of innocence in his favour---Every benefit of doubt would go to the accused regardless of the fact whether he has taken any such plea or not. Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant and injuring his nephew by firing---Prosecution alleged motive to be a domestic dispute, however, no reliable evidence was led in that respect to establish the motive---Although, prosecution was not bound to setup a motive in every case but once it was alleged, it became duty of prosecution to prove the same and other-wise to suffer consequences thereof---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Benefit of (reasonable) doubt---Scope---Conviction must be based on unimpeachable and certainty of guilt---Any doubt arising in prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused. Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Safe custody of the recovered weapon of offence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant and injuring his nephew by firing---Recovery witness stated that the case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory by Moharrir concerned, however, statement of Moharrir was not recorded by Investigating Officer---Crime empties were allegedly effected from the spot and as per prosecution version, the accused was arrested with 30 bore pistol on said date, however, the crime empties along with 30 bore pistol were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory---However, it was not established on the record that where remained the aforesaid articles during the intervening period till those were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Neither Moharrir nor the official who allegedly took the said articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory were examined to ascertain the safe custody of same till their dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Recovery---Scope---Recovery was a corroborative piece of evidence and where direct evidence failed, corroborative piece of evidence was of no avail. Ss. 302 &324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Presence of the witnesses at the spot was doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant and injuring his nephew by firing---Motive for the offence was stated to be a domestic dispute---In the present case, the statement of the complainant belied the FIR regarding mode and manner of the occurrence inasmuch as same depicted that dishonest improvement had been made by the complainant with regard to number of fire shots, which fact was never mentioned in the FIR---When complainant stated that he took both the injured to emergency of the hospital and after a while the doctor came out and told him that his mother had died and that it was about 7/7:30 PM, whereas the time of occurrence was also 7:30 PM, while the matter was reported at 7:40 PM---Complainant in the same breath stated that after that my elder brother brought my nephew to the Hospital who was also injured with firearm---From that narration, it could safely be concluded that the complainant was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence---Complainant further stated in his examination-in-chief that on the next day police took them to the spot, which was negated by the statement of the Investigating Officer as well as the recovery memo. so much so the Investigating Officer stated to have visited the spot on said date at 9:00 PM---However, while going through cross-examination, the same was found as shaky and not worth reliance---Second alleged eye-witness stated that they were coming back from doctor, stopped near Marriage Hall to purchase Roti; that suddenly the accused made firing and then he killed---During his statement it was observed that the witness was not deposing in a coherent way and seemed quite oblivion and disoriented and that he was speaking in general and quite inadequately---Such statement by itself was not sufficient to be relied upon for sustaining conviction, that too, on a capital charge, as it clearly depicted that said eye-witness was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence---Had he been present on the spot, the complainant while reporting the matter must have mentioned his company while taking his nephew to the doctor, rather his name was mentioned at the end of story to have witnessed the occurrence---Presence of said witness was nowhere established from any independent evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly. Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant and injuring his nephew by firing---Investigating Officer admitted that he himself had not recovered any weapon or ammunition from the accused, rather same were handed over to him by one Police Constable---Said Police Constable was not produced before the Court to support the Investigating Officer, rather he was abandoned by the prosecution---Even otherwise, arrest of the accused and recovery of pistol from the accused had become doubtful in view of the statement of another Police Constable, who stated that he was marginal witness to the recovery memo. vide which the Investigating Officer during personal search of the accused recovered and took into possession one pistol 30 bore i.e. weapon of offence along with three rounds of the same bore---Said witness stated during cross-examination that Investigating Officer of the present case got arrested only accused facing trial in his presence and no other proceeding was conducted by him in his presence either on the spot or in the police station---Such recoveries had lost their evidentiary value, which could not be relied upon for safe dispensation of justice---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

STATE through Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs SAJID MUNIR Witness — 2023 YLRN 74 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported