Saeed Noor vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1021 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.

Saeed Noor VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence in contradiction---Inconsequential due to unimpeachable ocular testimony---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to personal enmity---According to eye-witnesses and other prosecution witnesses, the deceased sustained firearm injury on his left eye, whereas in his evidence, the Medical Officer, who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body, deposed that the deceased had sustained injury on his right eye---From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it was evident that all of them had categorically and specifically deposed that the deceased had sustained injury on his left eye---Complainant in her evidence specifically deposed that accused fired from his pistol upon her husband which hit him on his left eye as a result of which he fell down and died at the spot---Another eye-witness who was son of the deceased also made statement that accused fired from his pistol which hit on the left eye of the deceased, resultantly the deceased died at the spot---Likewise, the witness who had registered the FIR and had prepared Inquest Report, had stated in the Inquest Report and also admitted in his cross-examination that the bullet allegedly fired by the accused had hit left eye of the deceased---Even, other two witnesses had also stated in categorically terms that deceased had sustained injury on his left eye at the hands of accused---Not only that, even in the charge framed against the accused, and also in all other documents, except the evidence of Medico-Legal Officer, it was mentioned that deceased had sustained injury on his left eye at the hands of the accused---From the minor scrutiny of the post-mortem report it appeared that although against Column No. 13, it had been written, punctured firearm wound irregular in pattern 6cmx4cm over right eye ball---However, prior to that against Column No. 12 while describing condition of certain parts of the dead body of the deceased it had, inter-alia, been stated, left eye bursted---Said fact created, if not serious doubt, at least serious confusion about the authenticity of the contents of the postmortem report itself---It was not understandable that when in the first part of the post-mortem report it was specifically mentioned that the deceased had his left eye bursted, then how in the later part of the post-mortem report it was mentioned that the deceased had received a punctured wound over his right eye ball---Either this had happened due to typographical/humanitarian mistake or error, or Medical Officer had deliberately made two contradictory statements regarding the place seat of injury allegedly sustained by the deceased---However, such doubtful or at least confusing statement of the Medico-Legal Officer could not be given preference over the unimpeachable and confidence inspiring ocular testimony, evidence of other prosecution witnesses and circumstantial evidence---Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Saeed Noor vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 1021 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ