Anwar Faheem alias Anoo alias Zeeshan vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 762 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.

Anwar Faheem alias Anoo alias Zeeshan VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Pakistan arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13(d)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, possession of illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Statement of eyewitness not credible---accused were charged for committing murder of brother of complainant and his friend by firing---Record showed that statement of eyewitness Mr. "M" under S. 161, Cr. P.C. was allegedly recorded on 04.08.2011, after a lapse of more than 10/11 days of the incident, for which, no plausible explanation had been furnished by the prosecution---Likewise Investigating Officer also failed to establish his presence at the place of incident in the memo of place of incident and also in the other document i.e. inquest report under S. 174, Cr. P.C.---Present eye-witness was not the person who had taken the dead bodies to the hospital for further process---Most important thing was that no Huliya/description and features were mentioned in the statement of such eyewitness---according to testimony of said witness, he went to restaurant (place of incident) along with his friend Mr. "F" to have dinner but said Mr. "F" had not been produced by the prosecution for his evidence---Thus, the evidence of said ey-ewitness was not confidence inspiring and as such his evidence was not credible---another crucial point was that the statement under section 164, Cr. P.C., of said eye-witness was recorded on 25.10.2011 after a lapse of three months and after the arrest of the accused persons which itself indicated that prosecution had no tangible evidence and the said eyewitness was introduced by police in order to dispose of the case in hand on flimsy ground---One of the eye-witneses, during the trial, was declared hostile by the prosecution---No doubt the hostile witness could be taken into consideration when other circumstances were supporting the case of prosecution---Surprising that the Trial Court had relied only on evidence of one eyewitness when the other circumstances and corroborative evidence had not come on the record, therefore, in absence of other strong circumstantial evidence, the evidence of said eyewitness could not be relied on---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Anwar Faheem alias Anoo alias Zeeshan vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 762 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD