Saddam vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Motive was given as previous blood feud between the parties, but neither the complainant, nor the Investigating Officer could collect any evidence in that respect and even no independent witness was examined to confirm the involvement of the deceased in the earlier episode, so the prosecution failed to establishthe motive---Absence or weakness of motive would hardly be a circumstance to be taken for the acquittal of an accused, but once the eye-witness account failed, then the absence of motive could be taken into consideration even for the acquittal of an accused and the present case was no exception---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of complainant/eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence---Chance witness, evidence of---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was previous blood feud between the parties---Allegedly, the complainant, eye-witness and the deceased had come to the Court to pursue his case---As the complainant was the resident of a village lying away from the place of incident, so it was for the complainant to convince that on the day of incident he, the deceased and the eye-witness visited Courts in connection of his pending cases---Despite efforts Cout could not come across any evidence showing his activities, in Courts, on the day of incident---Neither the complainant nor the eye-witness could provide the relevant documents to the Investigating Officer and even the Investigating Officer failed to collect any evidence from the concerned quarters---Complainant could not disclose the nature of his case, the Court he attended and the advocate whose services were hired---When the most relevant evidence was neither collected, nor brought on record the Court was hesitant to accept presence of complainant and that of the eye-witness at the place of incident and at the time of incident, rather the Court was to walk an extra mile to appreciate their presence on the spot---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 50 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the dead body was collected from the spot by Rescue 1122 service and that soon thereafter the same was shifted to the hospital, but the matter was reported at 12.20 pm after the delay of more than fifty (50) minutes---As the hospital was situated at a little distance from the place of occurrence and as the dead body was collected from the spot by Rescue 1122 service, so the time spent in reporting the matter could not lightly be ignored---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant/eye-witness at the spot not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Admittedly, matter was reported by the complainant, but the dead body was neither identified by the complainant nor by the eye-witness, even at the time of report and even at the time of its examination---Identifiers belonged to the village of the complainant, so their arrival to the hospital at the time of report was a circumstance which indicated that they accompanied the complainant to the hospital after receiving information regarding the incident---Circumstances did tell that the complainant after receiving information regarding the incident reached to the hospital along with the identifiers and thereafter the report was made---As the complainant failed to establish his presence with the deceased and as the purpose to visit Court was not proved through the relevant witnesses, so an impression could be gathered that first the injury sheet and inquest report were prepared and thereafter the report was made---Moreover, Court could not exclude the possibility of preliminary investigation in the present case---At the time of incident, the deceased was present on the railway track---It was for the witnesses to tell that when they came out to the road to go to the village, then for what purpose the deceased went to the railway track, as complainant, the deceased and the eye-witness were to arrange a vehicle from the main road---Deceased was shown 25 paces ahead of the complainant and the eye-witness, at a place where the deceased had no purpose to visit---Site plan depicted that to the extreme East of the railway track there was a boundary wall of the doctor colony and the railway track being abandoned was often used by the drug addicts and the defence also suggested the same to the witnesses, but no positive reply was given---When all the three reached to the main road, then at what time the deceased went so fast to cover the distance of 25 paces and even the witnesses could not explain that what for the deceased went to the railway track---Complainant also disclosed that he and the eye-witness was fired at, but they escaped unhurt---Had the witnesses been present and had they been fired at, then there was hardly an occasion for them to escape unhurt, but the record suggested that neither they were fired at, nor they were present on the spot---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 50 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the dead body was collected from the spot by Rescue 1122 service and that soon thereafter the same was shifted to the hospital, but the matter was reported at 12.20 pm after the delay of more than fifty (50) minutes---As the hospital was situated at a little distance from the place of occurrence and as the dead body was collected from the spot by Rescue 1122 service, so the time spent in reporting the matter could not lightly be ignored---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Arrest of accused and recovery of weapon of offence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Investigating Officer explained that the appellant was arrested by the security in-charge, Central Prison, and that it was he who recovered a .30 bore pistol from his possession---Said Police Official was neither examined in the trial Court, nor his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C., was recorded---Investigating Officer told that the appellant was arrested along with three other suspects, when the appellant was arrested from the spot soon after the incident, then question was for what reason other persons were taken into custody on suspicion---Statement of the Investigating Officer got support from the statement of marginal witness of the recovery memo. through which the pistol was taken into possession---Said witness also disclosed that the appellant was arrested along with three other suspects, when so, then the arrest of the appellant was shrouded in mystery, more particularly, when the very person, who arrested him, was not produced---In respect of arrest of the appellant the prosecution came forward with different explanation through different witnesses---Marginal witness of the recovery memo. explained in his examination in chief that the appellant was arrested by him with the help of a constable and he further explained that after arrest of the appellant a sub-inspector reached to the spot and recovered a .30 bore pistol from the possession of the appellant, but in his cross-examination he narrated the incident in a different manner---Investigating Officer gave self-contradictory statements and when his statements were read with that of the marginal witness, then the arrest of the appellant became disputed---As on one hand marginal witness claimed to have arrested the appellant with the help of one constable, whereas the Investigating Officer in his examination in chief claimed to have arrested the appellant, but in his cross-examination he denied the same and explained the circumstances in a different manner---In his cross-examination marginal witness of recovery memo. confirmed that the appellant was arrested by the Security Officials of Central Jail, whereas in his further statement he disclosed that the appellant along with other suspects was handed over to him in the police station---Regarding the recovery of pistol, therecovery witness stated that when the appellant was arrested by him, a Sub-Inspector was attracted to the spot and recovered a pistol from his possession, but the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination disclosed that it was he who arrested the appellant and recovered a pistol from his possession---When the arrest of the appellant was disputed and when the Investigating Officer as well as marginal witness of recovery memo. contradicted each other regarding the arrest of the appellant, then the recovery from possession of the appellant by the Investigating Officer also did not appeal to mind---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Most relevant witness/eye-witness not produced---Adverse presumption---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the complainant was not the eye-witness and the most relevant witness/eye-witness was not produced, so an inference could be drawn that the eye-witness was not ready to support the false claim of the complainant and had he been produced he would have not supported the case of the prosecution---On one hand the complainant failed to establish his presence on the spot, whereas on the other the most important witness was abandoned as wonover, so an adverse inference could be drawn that the witness was not ready to support the false claim of the complainant---Such like situation was covered by Art. 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Saddam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firing---Record showed that the pistol was recovered on 24.02.2020 and so were the empties, but the same were received in the laboratory on 28.02.2020, i.e. after four days of its recovery---Investigating Officer could not explain the delay---As on one hand the witnesses remained inconsistent on the arrest and recovery of pistol from possession of the appellant, whereas on the other the recovery memo. was prepared on the next day and signed by the marginal witness in the police station, so its recovery from the appellant was shrouded in mystery and the contradictory statements of the witnesses questioned its authenticity---As the recovery of the weapon was not in accordance with law and as the same was sent to the Firearms Expert after long four days of its recovery so it's safe custody and its safe transmission to the firearms expert could not be established---Thus, the Court lurked no doubt in its mind that said piece of evidence had lost its utility and the same could not be taken into consideration---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 5150 - 5200

Saddam vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 1644 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD