Citation Name: 2024 YLR 427 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case HUMAYUN vs HABIB-UR-REHMAN Ss

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 427 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case HUMAYUN VS HABIB-UR-REHMAN Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 427, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr - jaifah - hashimah, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant sustained fire arm injuries---Record showed that the deceased received firearm injuries either on their left or on their right chest with its exit on the right---In order to appreciate that particular aspect of the case, it was essential to look into the respective places of the deceased which they were occupying at the time of firing---One of the deceased was shown occupying the extreme left of the driver with his face exposed to the accused, whereas, the other was shown seated on the rear plank located just behind the driving seat with his face facing south, whereas, the complainant was shown sitting on the plough of the tractor with his right exposed to the assailants, but the injuries caused on their bodies did not find support from the site plan---In case of the deceased sitting on extreme left of the driver, he should have received firearm injuries on his chest, whereas, the one sitting on the plank should have received the same on his right, but the physical circumstances of the case did not support the stance of the complainant in particular and that of the prosecution in general---Investigating Officer did not visit the fields, which, a little earlier, the complainant party had cultivated and even, no documentary evidence was collected in that respect to tell that the landed property was owned by the complainant---Investigating Officer, who was cross-examined on material aspects of the case, admitted that he did not visit the fields, where the complainant side had gone to cultivate and that he did not record the statements of independent witnesses in that respect---Though, one witness was examined, who stated that there was a dispute over landed property between the parties and the matter had been patched up in old good days and that the parties after satisfying each other on special oath, pledged to avoid differences in that respect, but apart from that witness, no independent witness came forward to support the same and as such, the same could not be taken into consideration to hold the accused responsible for the episode---When the Court found inconsistencies, contradictions and improvements in the prosecution evidence and when it reached to a conclusion that the occurrence had not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged and presented by the prosecution then its benefit was to be extended to the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 427 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case HUMAYUN vs HABIB-UR-REHMAN Ss — 2024 YLR 427 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR