Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 435 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case JALAT KHAN vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 435 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case JALAT KHAN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in statements of eye-witnesses---Effect---Accused were charged that they made murderous attack upon the complainant party, due to which there persons were seriously injured, however one of them died---Prosecution produced direct evidence in the shape of evidence of the complainant of the case, two injured persons and a mediator in between the parties---Complainant of the case in his fard-e-bayan clearly stated that on the morning of occurrence he along with the injured and deceased approached the accused party, who were armed with sticks and Kalashnikov and during altercation they launched attack upon them, due to which three persons were injured---Contents of fard-e-bayan were silent with regard to any minor injury received by the complainant, while the complainant contradicted his earlier statement contained in fard-e-bayan and stated that he was not injured in the incident as he was mediating in between the parties---Assertion so narrated in the court statement not only contradicted the earlier statement of complainant, but also created suspicion with regard to his presence at the relevant time---It did not appeal to logic that the complainant along with injured and deceased quarreled with the accused party and after severely beating the injured and deceased, the accused party did not harm the complainant, who otherwise belonged to the tribe of victims and he was accompanying the victims at the relevant time---Admittedly, the prosecution had failed to justify the presence of the complainant at the relevant time---Injured persons claimed to be eye-witnesses---If the statements of both the injured witnesses were compared with the statement of complainant, it transpired that the same contradicted each other---According to complainant, he along with others i.e. the injured approached the accused party where the occurrence had taken place, while the injured witnesses had stated that after hearing hue and cries and firing shots, they reached at the place of occurrence and the accused party also launched attack upon them---Question arose that if both the injured witnesses reached at the place of occurrence when already the fighting had started, then who was accompanying the complainant, and who approached the accused prior to the occurrence---Evidence of both the injured witnesses was contradictory to each other and also did not corroborate the statement of complainant---Thus, the presence of complainant was doubtful---Mediator in the case, claimed to be an independent witness of the occurrence and according to his statement the hue and cries attracted him along with other witness to the place of occurrence, where they observed fighting between the parties---Said witness ascribed roles to all the accused persons as narrated by injured witnesses---However, in his cross-examination said witness admitted that the victims belonged to sub-caste of Jaffar tribe i.e. Mira and he also belonged to the same tribe, while the accused belonged to Essot tribe---Admittedly, the accused persons and said witness not only belonged to same area, but they were also same tribesmen and relatives, thus no implicit reliance could be placed upon the testimony of said witness---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 435 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case JALAT KHAN vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 435 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ