HAYATULLAH vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 202 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.

HAYATULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Motive for the offence was stated to be previous blood feud---In the present case, the ocular account of the incident was furnished by the complainant and his cousin---Complainant although reiterated same story as narrated in the FIR, however, he also added that on the following day of the occurrence the local police came to the spot and they were waiting for arrival of the dead body when the local police came and they went to the spot where blood-stained earth from the place of deceased and injured was secured coupled with collection of five empties of 7.62 bore from the place of the accused by the Investigating Officer and that he spent 2/2½ hours on the spot with the Investigating Officer---Said deposition was belied by Investigating Officer, who stated during cross-examination that the complainant and eye-witness were present with them when they proceeded from police station to the spot---Although complainant was a tractor driver by profession and used wrist watch as admitted by him and rightly so, however, despite that no specific time of occurrence was mentioned in the report lodged by the complainant, rather it was mentioned as 'Deegar Wela'---According to the deposition of complainant, at the time of occurrence, left side of the deceased was towards the accused---If deposition of the complainant was accepted, same was belied by the statement of Medical Officer, who although observed first entry wounds on left shoulder joint with its exit wound on right axilla, however, entry No.2 was on medial aspect of right forearm---Second alleged eye-witness, who although reiterated same story as narrated in the FIR, however, according to him, first he reached the place of occurrence/landed property, whereas the complainant reached there after 5/10 minutes of his arrival---Said deposition was contradicted by the report as well as statement of the complainant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

HAYATULLAH vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 202 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ