ARSHAD ALI vs State S — 2024 MLD 212 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.

ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the complainant at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that arranging transport for shifting the deceased then injured to the hospital was not mentioned in the FIR---Even the complainant while testifying before the Court in his examination-in-chief did not mention the source of transportation of the dead body from the spot to the hospital, however, he stated during cross-examination that the dead body was transported to the hospital in a pickup---One Mr. "R" was the driver of pickup through which the injured was transported to the hospital and said Mr. "R" was attracted there because they heard fire shots, however, said Mr. "R" had not been cited as witness in the present case to support stance of the complainant---Astonishingly, the dead body of the deceased was received by one Mr. "M" at the hospital after postmortem examination, but said Mr. "M" was abandoned by the prosecution---Said witness stated that the distance between the place of occurrence and Masjid was about 6/7 paces, which was negated by the Investigating Officer, who stated that the Masjid was far away from the place of occurrence, that's why he had not noted/shown the same in the site plan---Complainant further testified that blood was oozing from the body of injured which might had stained the cot as well, however, that stance was not supported by the Investigating Officer, who stated that he did not remember that whether the hands of the complainant and the witness were besmeared with the blood of deceased---Complainant stated that there was an electric bulb installed on western side of the wall of a shop, however, he admitted that he had not stated in his initial report about the installation of bulb on the said shop---Even otherwise, stance of the complainant was negated by other witness, who stated that when the police reached the spot the bulb was lit, the Police Officials later brought a search light during spot inspection and the bulb was not lit at that time---Even otherwise, the bulb was produced by witness in pieces---Scanning of statement of said witness showed that it remained a mystery that where the deceased breathed his last---Keeping in view the alleged motive, the complainant was at the mercy of the accused, but he was not fired at, rather as per stance of the complainant, before firing the accused raised lalkara at his brother---Accused sparing the complainant to create evidence against himself was nothing but a mystery in itself because the accused had every opportunity to settle the score keeping in view the alleged motive---In view of the said situations, it was concluded that the complainant was not present at the time of occurrence and the events of the incident narrated by him were not in line with the story mentioned in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

ARSHAD ALI vs State S — 2024 MLD 212 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD