MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs State S — 2024 SCMR 1427 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 HASSAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Medical evidence---Scope---Where direct evidence is found to be unreliable or untrustworthy, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of medical evidence. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of weapon on pointation of accused---Absence of forensic report of firearm---So far as the recovery of a single barrel gun on the pointation of the petitioner was concerned, the High Court had rightly disbelieved the same in the absence of any positive report of the firearm expert---Even otherwise, it was highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of recovery, which even otherwise was a corroborative piece of evidence and relevant only when the primary evidence i.e. ocular account inspired confidence, whereas in the present case the ocular account was doubtful---Prosecution case against the petitioner was doubtful---Jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State S.302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Chance witnesses---Reason for presence of eye-witnesses at the spot and time of incident not established---Combined effect of the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses was that their presence at the scene at the relevant time was not natural---Therefore, it was mandatory for the said witnesses to justify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time with some cogent reasons---In order to justify their presence, two of the witnesses asserted that they were employees of person "AH", a resident of the village where the alleged occurrence took place, but they did not produce any independent oral or documentary evidence to support this claim---Similarly, the complainant also did not justify his presence at the place of occurrence which was more than 100 kms away from his residence, especially when he admitted that he had no relation with the deceased---In light of the aforementioned facts, the alleged eye-witnesses could not justify their reasons for being at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Therefore, they were chance witnesses, and their evidence was not free from doubt---Prosecution case against the petitioner was doubtful---Jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Sequence of events not appealing to reason---All the eye-witnesses uniformly stated that all ten accused persons, who were armed with deadly weapons, kept making indiscriminate firing, but they escaped by seeking cover behind the nearby trees---This sequence of events did not appeal to reason---Furthermore, the allegation of indiscriminate firing was also negated by the recovery memo, whereby only eleven empty cartridges were secured by the Investigating Officer from the place of the alleged occurrence---Prosecution case against the petitioner was doubtful---Jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Delay in lodging of FIR---Consequential---Formal FIR was registered at 8:10 a.m., approximately more than sixteen hours after the incident, despite the police station being only 16 km away from the scene of the occurrence---Nowhere in the entire evidence, the prosecution had explained the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to the Police with such a delay---Delayed FIR showed dishonesty on the part of the complainant and that it was lodged with deliberation and consultation---Prosecution case against the petitioner was doubtful---Jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Regarding motive prosecution submitted before High Court that the present petitioner was not an accused in a previous murder case involving the maternal uncle of the complainant---This fact was also confirmed by the complainant during his cross-examination before the Trial Court---Motive was a double-edged weapon, which could be used either way and by either side i.e. for real or false involvement---So, the motive asserted by the prosecution indicated that there was an enmity of murder between the parties and the said motive, being double edge, could be the reason for the false implication of the petitioner---Admittedly, the complainant had no relation with the deceased of the present case, yet he was vigilantly pursuing the case by filing a private complaint even after the petitioner was found innocent by the local police---Ordinarily, an individual with no direct relation to the victim might report a crime if witnessed, but would not usually remain actively involved beyond that initial action. Fact that the complainant was so invested in this case, despite having no apparent reason to be, raised questions about the motives behind his actions and, by extension, casted doubt over the prosecution's case---Evidence of motive was rightly not believed by the High Court for valid reasons which were not open to any exception---Prosecution case against the petitioner was doubtful---Jail petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State Corroboratory evidence---Scope---Corroboratory evidence does not convert an unreliable witness, or evidence, into a reliable one. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HASSAN VS State Benefit of doubt---Once a single loophole/lacuna is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused.

MUHAMMAD HASSAN vs State S — 2024 SCMR 1427 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR