Bijar alias Bijli vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Bijar alias Bijli VS State Ss. 324, 353, 225, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 24---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made assault upon the police party with hatchets and clubs, due to which Police personnel sustained injuries---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by three witnesses---Complainant deposed verbatim the FIR---Said witness stated that he managed to dodge two bullets during a close quarter scuffle, managed to disarm the assailant by swiftly ejecting the magazine from the pistol held by the said assailant and managed to escape unscathed---Incident was to be viewed with skepticism from the very inception because the case set out at best would have been of ineffective firing even if the prosecution's version was accepted and the likelihood of the other injuries being managed was almost certain---according to the complainant, three people were armed with pistols---Of those three, one was arrested by the heroic efforts of complainant while the other two were shown to have just fired in the air despite seeing their companion being caught---Prosecution's second eye-witness, a Police Official presented a chronology of events that contradicted the initial account---Most notably, said witness asserted that accused fired two shots directly at complainant, prompting him to intervene and disarm him---This contradicted complainant's own version in which the shot allegedly did not miss but was deflected at close range and that he ejected the pistol magazine prior to the second shot---another eye-witness contradicted the depositions of complainant and Head Constable qua the locale of the shot that landed on the police mobile---Earlier, complainant and Head Constable had deposed that the shot landed on the bonnet/hood of the vehicle, however Police Constable stated that the shot landed on the passenger side, which he mentioned as the site the SHO was seated on, and that the same went through the back---Said witness also contradicted others in stating that the accused was apprehended only after managing to shoot once---Pictures exhibited by the prosecution of the vehicle corroborated the version of Police Constable and not the others---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to drive home the charge against the accused persons beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bijar alias Bijli VS State Ss. 324, 353, 225, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 24---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Injuries sustained by injured, doubtful---accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made assault upon the police party with hatchets and clubs, due to which Police personnel sustained injuries---admittedly, the unknown accused caused hatchet and club blows to Head Constable and Police Constable---Complainant did not state how he received injuries, so it was rather surprising to note that in his deposition he later stated that he had to visit the doctor at Civil Hospital for his own treatment as well and that he received two injuries on his forehead---Discrepancy was left unexplained by every single eye-witness, all of whom failed to account for how those injuries were received which were found to be incised cuts requiring stitches---Injuries, received by Head Constable and Police Constable, however, were not in dispute and as per medical evidence were due to blunt weapons---Said Officials received injuries at the hands of the unknown accused that were not known to the police---None of the eye-witnesses could even state which accused caused which injury, rather such role was collectively assigned to the four unknown assailants---Relevancy of medical evidence, in such a case, was very little---Prosecution did not have to prove that the injuries were caused but that they were caused by the accused persons---Thus, the possibility of the injuries being managed could not rule out---However, it already appeared implausible that the Police Officials escaped firearm injuries but were a victim of blunt force trauma---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to drive home the charge against the accused persons beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bijar alias Bijli VS State Ss. 324, 353, 225, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 24---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Delay in sending the weapon of offence and crime empties for analysis---accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made assault upon the police party with hatchets and clubs, due to which Police personnel sustained injuries---Ballistic examination report pertaining to the pistol allegedly recovered from accused and the three bullet casings also raised significant questions---Such items were reportedly sent for examination after a seven-day delay---Record indicated that the case property was held in the Malkhana under Entry No. 258, produced by Writing Head Constable---However, that very entry presented cause for concern---During cross-examination, Writing Head Constable admitted to preparing Entry No. 24 on plain paper, raising questions about its authenticity---Said entry was pertaining to the deposit of the blood stained clothes of the complainant---Writing Head Constable was also unable to clarify when the entry was created, to which police register it belonged, or whether it constituted the original record---Furthermore, the Malkhana entry for the .30 bore pistol and bullet casings, bearing No. 258, lacked a date, time or official police station stamp, rendering its evidentiary value negligible---absence of a proper record undermined the evidentiary value of the pistol on several fronts---First, the prosecution lacked the ability to definitively prove the recovery of the pistol---Beyond the testimony of prosecution witnesses, there existed the possibility of tampering with the evidence, including the entries themselves---Second, the pistol being in a working condition was also called into question---Lack of firearm injuries could suggest that the recovered pistol was inoperable and subsequently replaced with a functioning weapon---Furthermore, the complainant had failed to prepare a sketch of the recovered pistol which ought to have assisted in establishing its identity as well---Such omission too stuck at the heart of the prosecution case---as per depositions of Writing Head Constable, he was not even aware of the contents of the parcels handed over to him because he deposed that the contents of the parcels were not disclosed to him by the Investigating Officer---On such grounds alone, the conviction of accused for the offense punishable under S.24 of the Sindh arms act, 2013 could not be sustained---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to drive home the charge against the accused persons beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bijar alias Bijli VS State Ss. 324, 353, 225, 337-a(i), 337-F(i), 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149---Sindh arms act (V of 2013), S. 24---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Deliberate and dishonest improvements---accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made assault upon the police party with hatchets and clubs, due to which Police personnel sustained injuries---Identity of the unknown accused was under doubt---Complainant stated that he just came to know of the identity of those unknown assailants and got his further statement recorded under S.162 Cr.P.C----Complainant did not disclose the source of such information, and in the same S.162, Cr.P.C statement he disclosed how he received the injuries---Such statement was nothing short of an attempt to improve the prosecution case---Deliberate and dishonest improvements, taken with the assumption that they were to strengthen the prosecution case, casted serious doubts on the said witness veracity which ultimately made him unreliable---No test identification parade was conducted either and the police believed whatever source they had received their information from---Undoubtedly it is not a legal requirement to conduct a test identification parade, however in cases where the accused are not known by name or are not seen previously, it becomes a necessity in order to establish their identity---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to drive home the charge against the accused persons beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 2619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bijar alias Bijli VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than one innocent suffers.

Bijar alias Bijli vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 2619 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR