MUHAMMAD SADIQUE vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 560 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.

MUHAMMAD SADIQUE VS State Ss. 324, 353, 399, 402, 148 & 149---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S.24---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, making preparation for dacoity, assembling for purpose of committing dacoity, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing unlicensed weapon---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Effect---accused were charged for stopping the police mobile for robbing purpose and made straight firing on police party with intention to commit their qatl-i-amd---Police party also fired upon the culprits in their defence and one accused was apprehended in injured condition---Record showed that there were certain contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they also had made certain admissions which went in favour of the accused and weakened the case of prosecution---Complainant in his cross-examination admitted that they left place of incident at about 03.40 a.m. for Police Station---Time of alleged incident had been shown as 11.30 p.m. on 18.08.2020---Thus, said statement of complainant was contradictory to the time of lodging of FIR of alleged incident as mentioned in the FIR i.e. 12.40 of the night on 19.08.2020---It was not understandable that when the police party left the place of incident at 03.40 a.m. i.e. on the midnight of 19.8.2020, then as to how they got the FIR registered three hours prior to that at 12.40 a.m.---another glaring contradiction in between the statement of complainant made in his evidence and the one made in the FIR was that in his cross-examination he admitted that three accused were not arrested on the spot and SHO along with his staff followed the escapees---On the other hand, FIR was totally silent about such fact---Moreover, there was no mention at all in the FIR that SHO along with other subordinate staff was also accompanying complainant and his subordinates in another police van at the time of alleged incident, or that after the alleged incident when other culprits except one accused made their escape good, he informed the SHO about such fact and consequently SHO followed the said accused persons---Furthermore, complainant in his cross-examination stated that on the next day of incident, they left Police Station for site inspection at 07.00 a.m. and mashirs accompanied him from Police Station---Distance between Police Station and spot was about 11 kilometers---Complainant consumed about 10/12 minutes from Police Station to place of incident for site inspection---On the other hand, mashir (Head Constable) in his cross-examination made such statement which was in contradiction with the statement of complainant---Said witness stated that there was a jungle and they consumed about 20 minutes from Police Station to place of incident on the next day of incident; and they consumed about 30 minutes on the spot on the next day---Said witness stated that they reached at the place of wardat at about 07.00 a.m.---apart from that in the Memo of inspection, the time of its preparation had been shown as 07.00 a.m.---Taking the statement of complainant, if they left the police station at 07.00 a.m. and keeping in view the distance between Police Station and the spot i.e. 11 kilometers, as admitted by complainant, and the place of incident being located in jungle, as admitted by mashir, it should have taken at least 30 to 40 minutes to reach the place of incident---Meaning thereby they would have reached at the spot at about 07.40 a.m., but according to mashir, they reached at the spot at 07.00 am which was also the time of preparation of memo of inspection---Said glaring contradiction created doubt in the prosecution story---Besides, there was also another contradiction in the FIR and the evidence of complainant regarding the distance between the Police Station and the place of incident, inasmuch according to complainant, such distance was about 11 kilometers whereas in the FIR it had been shown as 4/5 kilometers---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SADIQUE vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 560 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ