MOHAMMAD DANISH REHMANI vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MOHAMMAD 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)---Qatl-i-amd, public servant concealing design to commit offence, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light not proved---Chance witness---accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Prosecution's case rested almost exclusively on the evidence of the sole eye-witness to the incident and his ability to correctly identify the accused who allegedly came on a motor bike along with others and fired on the deceased---according to the evidence of that witness, he was working at a printing press at the time of the incident but at the time of giving evidence he gave his occupation as a rickshaw driver which tended to cast doubt on what the actual job of the witness was and whether in fact he was a chance or planted witness---according to his evidence, he witnessed the incident from a gali at 11:45 pm at night when it was dark---No evidence was available on record that there was any source of light at that time and it was unclear how far away he was from the firing which would only have gone on for a brief moment and under chaotic circumstances---Under such circumstances, it was doubtful that even if the witness was present he would have been able to correctly identify the accused of whom he would have only got a fleeting glance on seeing him for the first time---according to his evidence said witness gave his statement to the police three days after the incident along with his name and address, however he was not contacted by the first Investigating Officer despite him being a really important witness who originally submitted his report in "a" class without any mention of the eye-witness which again raised doubt that he was even present at the time of the incident---Even if the eye witness was present at the time of the incident, which was very much doubtful, he would not have been able to correctly, safely and reliably identify the accused----Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

MOHAMMAD DANISH REHMANI vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD