Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Siraj vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation: 2024 MLD 1837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court: Balochistan High Court
Year: 2024
Reporter: MLD
Parties: Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Siraj vs State Ss
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 34

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1837 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Siraj VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 34, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Vicarious liability---Accused were charged for making firing upon the sons of complainant, due to which one son of complainant died whereas two sustained fire arm injuries---Complainant stated that on the day of incident, hot words were exchanged between his son and the principal accused as, his brother was reluctant to pay the price due in respect of a common land sold by him; that said altercation prompted the accused, who armed with weapon, lathis daggers and caused fatal injuries to his sons---If the statement of the complainant was judged with reference to the proposition of common object, then it would mean that the said altercation that occurred between the principal accused and son of the complainant, instigated the accused party, which assembled and made murderous assault upon the complainant's party---Complainant in his report and Court's statement mentioned that because of such altercation and exchange of hot words, the accused party assaulted upon his house---In his report, the complainant had mentioned that the altercation took place on the day of incident---Thus, the Court inferred that the accused party had no pre-arranged plan and shared common intention for commission of the assigned criminal act on the day of incident---Therefore, provisions of S.34, P.P.C, did not apply in the instant case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to substantiate accusation against the accused persons without shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD

2024 MLD 608 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHRamesh Kumar VS State Benefit of doubt---While giving the benefit of doubt to an accused it is not necessary that there should be many circu…
2024 MLD 474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHMOHAMMAD DANISH REHMANI VS State Ss.302, 119, 109 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)--…
2024 MLD 1359 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBehram Jakhro VS State Ss. 498 & 497---Cancellation of bail---Principles for cancellation/recalling of bail---Bail may be cancelled (i) if t…
2024 MLD 1237 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHZulfiqar Ahmed VS Muhammad Nadeem Purpose---at times, while lodging of criminal cases, wider net is cast to implicate an accused including o…
2024 MLD 862 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHMuhammad Ali VS State Ss. 324 & 353--- Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 23 (1)(a)--- attempt to qatl-i-amd, police encounter and recovery of f…
2024 MLD 1394 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtMoatabar Khan VS Zaheer Abbas S. 497(5)---Cancellation of bail---Grounds---Bail may be cancelled (i) if bail granting order is patently ille…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English