MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs State S — 2024 SCMR 1133 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Petition for leave to appeal challenging acquittal of accused---According to the prosecution story, seven persons had beaten up the deceased and this incident was seen by both the sons of the deceased---No firearm was used in the scuffle, except danda and sotas but strangely the sons of the deceased did not come forward to rescue their father and remained as spectators---Five acquitted co-accused persons were implicated for murder without any shred of evidence and it was for want of proof that they were acquitted by the Trial Court, thus, it appeared that noose was thrown much wider, implicating innocent persons falsely---Motive was set up by the prosecution that there was litigation pending inter se the parties and the deceased was pursuing the case, however no proof was brought on record that the deceased was a party to that litigation---Thus, the High Court had rightly disbelieved the motive---Striking feature of the case was that in the FIR complete photographic narration of the entire tragedy had been given, so much so that acquitted co-accused and the respondent (accused) were attributed specific injuries with danda and sotas etc.---With such degree of accuracy each and every detail of the incident was given---This doubt of reasonable nature and substance strongly suggested that the complainant and the other eye-witnesses were not present at the spot---Beside this, ocular testimony was not in line with the documentary evidence, especially the medical evidence---High Court had observed that the injury specifically attributed to the respondent on the body of the deceased was not declared as fatal by the medical officer---When witnesses were found to have falsely deposed with regard to the involvement of acquitted co-accused persons then, ordinarily, they could not be relied upon qua the respondent unless their testimony was sufficiently corroborated through strong corroboratory evidence coming from an unimpeachable source---However there was not a single iota of corroboratory evidence to substantiate the tainted evidence of the same set of witnesses with regard to the involvement of the respondent in the crime, hence recording conviction of the respondent on the same evidence was absolutely unjustified---Hence, the High Court had rightly acquitted the respondent and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court---Petition challenging acquittal of respondent was dismissed and leave was declined.

MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs State S — 2024 SCMR 1133 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR