Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1622 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.

Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH VS State Ss. 279, 427 & 320---Rash driving or riding on a public way, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, qatl-i-khata by rash or negligent driving---Reappraisal of evidence---Eye-witnesses not naming the accused as the driver of the vehicle---Consequential---First alleged eye-witness of the occurrence in his statement before the Trial Court, had not mentioned the registration number of the vehicle which hit the vehicle of the deceased---He even did not name the petitioner (accused) in his above referred statement---He did not state that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle which hit the car of the deceased---He further stated that he could not tell the colours of the vehicles of the deceased or the accused---He also stated that he could not tell that from which direction the vehicle of the accused came at the spot---He further stated that he did not know the accused or the deceased of this case---Likewise the other alleged eye-witness was also not mentioned in the contents of the delayed FIR---He had also not stated before the Trial Court that the vehicle was driven by the petitioner---He had not named the petitioner in his examination-in-chief or during his cross-examination---He had categorically conceded during his cross-examination that he had not seen the occurrence though he reached at the spot within few seconds from the occurrence---He further conceded that he had not given any statement at the spot that the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving---He had further conceded that the driver of vehicle had already fled away from the spot when he reached there and no driver was present inside the vehicle---It was, therefore, evident that both the alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence produced by the prosecution had not named the petitioner in this case or alleged that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in question which hit the deceased---Prosecution failed to prove that it was the petitioner who was driving the vehicle in question---Prosecution had also not proved through any cogent evidence that it was driver of the said vehicle, who was responsible for rash and negligent driving---As such the prosecution failed to discharge its initial burden to prove the case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and the accused was acquitted of the charges while extending him the benefit of doubt. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURT ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence--- Recovery of weapon on pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Pistol allegedly recovered on pointation of accused was sent to the ballistic expert for examination, wherefrom, a negative report was received, therefore, the High Court declared the recovery of pistol from the appellant (convict) to be inconsequential---Keeping in view the observation of the doctor regarding shape and size of the injuries on the person of the deceased, it was evident that the injuries were caused by a pistol, other than the one recovered from the appellant---Appeal was allowed and appellant was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---First Information Report not registered promptly---Probability of deliberations and consultations before registering the FIR---Complainant in his statement before the Court stated that after the occurrence, he went to the petition writer and got recorded his complaint---Subsequently, he went to the police station for the registration of an FIR, but the Moharrar referred the complainant to the Incharge, therefore, he returned back---Complainant stated that he did not inform the Moharrar about the incident---Complainant further stated that he came back to the place of the occurrence, where the police officials were already present---According to the investigating officer (I.O.), he along with other police officials reached at the place of the occurrence upon receiving an information regarding the incident---That was the first information, which he did not enter into a register maintained in the police station, nor had disclosed the source of his information---Complainant contended that he made an oral statement before the I.O. at the place of the occurrence, who reduced it into writing and obtained his signatures thereon, but no FIR was registered upon his statement, nor was it produced in the court---Thus, the initial stance of the complainant had not come on the record---Besides, nephew of the complainant, claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, and he in reply to a question, stated that the I.O. recorded his statement and fifteen minutes thereafter, the complainant reached at the scene of the occurrence, but surprisingly, his statement was also not taken as a first information---Admittedly, the FIR was subsequently registered upon a written complaint of the complainant, drafted by a petition writer---Facts and circumstances led to the conclusion that the FIR was not registered promptly, rather, the matter was reported belatedly to the police, after deliberation and consultation, therefore, false involvement of the appellant (convict) could not be ruled out---Appeal was allowed and appellant was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---FIR lodged promptly---Occurrence took place on 08.04.2009 at 01:00 pm, which was reported through a written application by the complainant at 02:40 pm and the FIR was registered at 03:20 pm---Father of the deceased (i.e. the complainant) strived hard to approach the Police Station to report the incident, and he went on a bus therefore there was a delay of two and half hours in the lodging of FIR---Such delay was not fatal to the prosecution case---Considering that the police station was located 13 miles away from the scene of the incident, along with the explanation provided by the complainant, it could be concluded that the report was made promptly---If delay in lodging FIR is well explained then same is not fatal for the prosecution's case---Even otherwise in the absence of previous enmity the delay in lodging the FIR would not matter much---Ocular account was fully supported by the medical evidence and corroborated by the circumstances of the case---Prosecution had produced sufficient incriminating material against the appellant---High Court had rightly converted the death sentence of the appellant to life imprisonment---Impugned judgment of the High Court was well reasoned and needed no interference---Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Unnatural conduct of complainant and alleged eye-witness---Presence of complainant and alleged eye-witness at the place of occurrence doubtful---It was not acceptable to a prudent mind that when the son of the complainant received bullet injuries, he and the eye-witness being his nephew did not take the injured to a hospital, in order to save his life---Instead, the complainant opted to go to the police station for registration of an FIR, leaving behind two witnesses---Record reflected that the dead body remained lying at the place of the occurrence for about two and half hours---According to the doctor the dead body was brought to the hospital by the police officials and there was no evidence to prove that the complainant and a witness went along the dead body to the hospital, which was why, the dead body was identified by others, who were not produced as witnesses---Manner in which the complainant and alleged eye-witness narrated the story did not appear to be trustworthy---In the facts and circumstances of the case, their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was not established, therefore, the prosecution case against the appellant was doubtful---Appeal was allowed and appellant was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Accused having no nexus with the motive for the crime---In the FIR and in his court statement, the complainant alleged that a day before the occurrence, there was altercation between appellant "M" and his deceased son, as a result whereof, the occurrence had taken place---If the contention of the complainant was believed to be true, then there was no occasion for present appellant "A" to take such an extreme step for no whim and reason----Motive was assigned to appellant "M", with which appellant "A" had no nexus, therefore, his involvement in the case was an afterthought---Since, one of the convicts was acquitted by the Appellate Court on the basis of a compromise and the other i.e. appellant "M" had died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, their roles towards the incident remained undecided---Under such circumstances, it was unsafe to hold the present appellant "A" alone responsible for the commission of the offence---Appeal was allowed and appellant "A" was acquitted of the charge. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Witnesses related to the deceased---Inconsequential---Mere relationship of the deceased with witnesses is not a criteria to disbelieve their evidence---Typically, most people in the community are hesitant to get involved as witnesses in serious murder cases unless they have some kind of personal connection to either the victim or the accused---This reluctance stems from various factors such as fear of retaliation, concerns about their safety/security and a lack of trust in the legal system---It is common for individuals to feel more compelled to come forward if they have a relationship, whether it's familial, social, or otherwise, with one of the parties involved---In the present case, eye-witnesses had given very reliable reason for their presence on the spot at the time of occurrence which could not be discredited---They had no axe of their own to grind and it could not be shown that they substituted the appellants (convicts) for any ulterior motive---Complainant undoubtedly was a witness of the occurrence which took place in broad daylight with no possibility of mistaken identity---Being the father of the deceased, he would not allow the real culprit to escape by implicating an innocent person---Prosecution had produced sufficient incriminating material against the appellant---High Court had rightly converted the death sentence of the appellant to life imprisonment---Impugned judgment of the High Court was well reasoned and needed no interference---Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Witnesses related to the deceased, testimony of---Reliability---Mere close relationship of the deceased with witnesses is not a criteria to believe or disbelieve their evidence. Citation Name: 2024 SCMR 1608 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABID HUSSAIN VS State Motive not proved---Effect---Mere failure to prove alleged motive has no adverse effect on the prosecution's case, if prosecution has proved its case by reliable evidence.

Syed FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1622 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR