Hazrat Ghulam vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 962 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.

Hazrat Ghulam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Incosequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over a thoroughfare---As far as motive was concerned, though the thoroughfare was stated to be bandobasti, and not privately owned by the accused party, both the complainant and the eye-witness candidly testified that the accused party was not happy that the complainant party should use it---Witnesses admitted having enmity with other persons in the village, but they remained firm in their depositions that they had no other dispute with the accused party other than the use of the thoroughfare---Even otherwise, the mere fact that the prosecution had failed to prove motive was not by itself a reasonable ground for acquittal, especially when the ocular account was natural, trustworthy and found complete support from the medical and circumstantial evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 962 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hazrat Ghulam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Injured complainant was accompanying all the three deceased on the day of occurrence at the relevant time---Complainant was the victim and the sole survivor of the incident---Complainant got injured with fire shots and his testimony as an injured was of vital importance in the case---Eye-witness admittedly was the brother of one of the deceased persons and close relative of others---Fact of complainant not seening eye-witness before the happening of the incident appeared to be true---Reason was that had the complainant seen him before the incident, he would have surely nominated him as the eye-witness---Close relationship of said witness was undeniably a factor that mattered regardless of the fact whether he was introduced as a chance witness or a natural eye-witness---No doubt, eye-witness rushed to complainant soon after the happening of the incident and managed to send information of the incident to the village---However, eye-witness correctly pointed out the crime scene to the Investigating Officer---Nothing was on record that the complainant might have tutored eye-witness about the mode and manner of the incident---As the testimony of eye-witness was found natural and confidence inspiring, therefore, the mere fact that his name did not figure in the FIR was no ground to discard his statement---Even otherwise, if the statement of said eye-witness was kept out of consideration, still the direct testimony of injured complainant was there---Statement of complainant was found natural, trustworthy and confidence inspiring---Deposition of complainant found complete support from the medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence, which was not convincingly shattered by the defence---Not the quantity, but the quality of evidence mattered---Even a single testimony of an eye-witness is sufficient to sustain conviction if it rings of truth---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 962 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hazrat Ghulam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime empties from the spot---Reliance---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---As many as 17 empties of 7.62 bore were recovered from the place of the incident---Presence of all the appellants and firing by each one of them coupled with the Forensic Science Laboratory Report that the empties were fired from different weapons substantiated the prosecution case---Such aspect not only excluded the possibility of the offence being committed by a single assailant, but also pointed toward the involvement of more than one assailant in the commission of the offence---Bloodstained earth from the respective places and their bloodstained garments with their positive Forensic Science Laboratory Reports further strengthened the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 962 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hazrat Ghulam VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Plea of alibi not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Appellant recorded his statement on oath under S.340, Cr.P.C and set up a defence that during the day of the incident, he was not present in the locality---Said accused stated that two months prior to the incident, he had a money dispute with appellant/his elder brother; that due to such dispute, accused had gone to village where he was residing with another person; that after 10-15 days of Eid-ul-Fitr, he returned to his village and then left for Karachi city for some labour job---While under cross-examination, said accused could not satisfactorily establish that he was not available in the locality---Admittedly, sister of said accused had been married in the village where occurrence took place---It was not appealing to a prudent mind that his sister would not have been informed about the occurrence---Said accused opted to produce his witness but he failed to do so despite as many as five opportunities given to him by the Trial Court---Thus, said accused failed to prove his defence plea---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 MLD 962 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hazrat Ghulam VS State Motive not proved---Effect---Failure to prove---Motive can be considered as a mitigating circumstance in awarding punishment.

Hazrat Ghulam vs State Ss — 2025 MLD 962 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 MLD