MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1839 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 RIAZ VS State Ss. 302(b), 324 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, unlawful assembly---Reappraisal of evidence---Material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of complainant and alleged eye-witness---Presence of complainant and alleged eye-witness at the scene of occurrence doubtful---While appearing as a witness, the complainant improved his previous statement and categorically described the type of firearm each accused person allegedly carried at the time of occurrence---However, he did not explain how he came to know what type of firearm each accused person, including the appellants, was carrying when, according to his own account, he was sitting in the rear seat of the car, from where it would have been impossible for him to see the whole occurrence---Furthermore, the complainant, during cross-examination, asserted that the application for the registration of the FIR was drafted 10 to 20 minutes after the incident, and the police arrived at the scene within 10 to 15 minutes---However, the complainant expressed ignorance about the person who drafted the said application---Complainant further disclosed that he remained at the scene for 10 minutes before being taken to the hospital for medical treatment---In contrast, the alleged injured eye-witness, made an entirely different statement, contradicting the complainant by stating that the police arrived at the scene 45 to 50 minutes after the incident; he further mentioned that the District Police Officer, also arrived at the scene, a fact not disclosed or alleged by the complainant---Said contradictions between eye-witness statements cast doubt on whether both witnesses were actually present at the scene---This doubt arose because if they had both witnessed the same event, their accounts should reasonably have aligned on key details---Moreover, it was an admitted fact that the prosecution witnesses did not attribute the shots that hit the deceased or injured to any specific accused persons, including the appellants; rather, a general role of indiscriminate firing was attributed to all the accused persons---They also did not describe the exact seating arrangement of the accused persons on the motorbikes while fleeing from the scene---This omission of important details further casted doubt on their presence at the place of occurrence---Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court were set aside, and consequently, both the appellants, were acquitted of the charge.

MUHAMMAD RIAZ vs State Ss — 2024 SCMR 1839 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR