UMAR ALI vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 356 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.

UMAR ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 324---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Belated plea of alibi---Accused was charged for making firing upon complainant, his brother and son, however son of complainant was hit and died at the spot---Accused took a specific plea of alibi in his statement under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C.---Occurrence had taken place on 25.08.2017 whereas statement of the accused on oath had been recorded on 20.07.2019---Accused deposed that at the time of occurrence he was present in another village and on his way home on a motorcycle he was informed by his brother-in-law, about the occurrence and his nomination as accused for committing murder of the deceased---Said information was conveyed to him by a maid on his cell phone---In cross-examination the accused clarified that after 6/7 months of the occurrence he surrendered before the police---Accused had not disclosed that fact either himself or through any person to police or had tried to make any application to high ups of the police regarding his innocence---Even after arrest accused had not submitted any application to the police regarding his innocence---Accused admitted that when he was brought to the Court for trial even then he did not make any application regarding his plea of alibi---Accused further admitted that the occurrence had taken place about two years back and after two years he was taking the plea of alibi by making the statement before the Court under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C.---However, plea of alibi should be taken at the earliest time/stage i.e. soon after arrest of the accused---In the present case, from his arrest till recording of statement of the accused under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., i.e. a long period of two years, no such plea had ever been taken by the accused---Accused had also not furnished any explanation, much less, plausible with regard to his delayed plea of alibi---No independent witness had been produced by the accused in support and proof of his plea of alibi---Defence version of the accused was neither supported by any ocular account nor by documentary evidence---In such view of the matter, the plea of alibi taken after unexplained delay was an afterthought and had rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

UMAR ALI vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 356 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ