MAQSOOD ALAM vs State S — 2024 SCMR 156 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.

MAQSOOD ALAM VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account doubtful---Co-accused with similar role acquitted on the same set of evidence---Recovery of weapon inconsequential---Motive not established---Parties were known to each other, therefore, not mentioning the name of the co-accused in the crime report shifted the burden on the shoulder of the prosecution to assign justiciable reasons for non-identification of the co-accused at the time of occurrence, especially when it is an admitted fact that the accused and co-accused did not commit the crime with covered faces---Although the complainant challenged the acquittal of co-accused before the High Court by filing a petition against acquittal but later on withdrew the same, which means that the findings of the Trial Court regarding the acquittal attained finality and the prosecution case to the extent of murder of one of the deceased had been disbelieved---In these circumstances, more caution was needed to decide the case of the accused---During the course of proceedings before the Trial Court, an attested copy of attendance register was placed on record, which showed that on the day of occurrence the complainant was present in his office, which was at a distance of 100 kilometers from the place of occurrence---According to the witnesses, the accused fired at the deceased from a distance of 3/4 karams but the medical record shows that there was blackening and charring around the wounds, which suggested that the injuries were caused from a close range, which further negated the ocular account---There were only two eye-witnesses of the occurrence, who admittedly, had been disbelieved to the extent of the acquitted co-accused, who was alleged to have played a similar role in the occurrence, then the same evidence could not be relied upon to convict the accused on capital punishment unless there was an independent corroboration and some strong incriminating evidence to the extent of his involvement in commission of the offence but the same was lacking in the instant case---Recovery of weapon from the accused was inconsequential because admittedly no crime empty was collected from the place of occurrence---Motive had also rightly been disbelieved by the High Court by holding that it was a vaguely formulated motive and no evidence in support of the same has been placed on record---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt.

MAQSOOD ALAM vs State S — 2024 SCMR 156 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR