Said Naik Amal Shah vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1584 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.

Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Identity of the accused not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---Investigating Officer testifiedthat the electricity supply was disconnected on the night of the occurrence and that there was no alternative source of light in the appellant's house---Investigating Officer also stated that he had prepared the site plan using a torch---Upon comparing the site plan with the FIR, a clear inconsistency arose regarding the complainant's position---First Information Report did not specify the distance between the kitchen, where the murder took place and the complainant's room---However, during cross-examination, the Investigating Officer stated that the distance was 20 feet and further admitted that the kitchen was not visible from the complainant's room, where he was present along with his grandmother and brother as reflected from the statement of the latter---Keeping in view said circumstances, particularly the darkness at the scene and the obstruction of visibility from the complainant's room, it was difficult to accept the claim of the eye-witnesses that they had seen the appellant stabbing their mother---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Reliance on hostile witness by Court---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---Record revealed that the prosecution had requested the trial Court to declare eye-witnesses as hostile witnesses during the cross-examination of one of the eye-witnesses when cross-examination on the complainant had already been completed---Witness could not be declared hostile during cross-examination---Thus, not only the decision of the Trial Court while declaring eye-witnesses as hostile witnesses was against the law but its reliance on their testimony, being of doubtful nature, was also against the settled principles---Criminal jurisprudence mandated that any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved in favor of the accused---In the present case, the unreliable nature of the testimony of both the eye-witnesses created a significant gap in the evidentiary chain---Trial Court's reliance on a hostile witness, whose account underwent material alterations, constituted a misapprehension of the weight to be accorded to such evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---During cross-examination, it was revealed by the eye-witnesses that their uncles along with their families and parents were residing in the same house and shared kitchen expenses---However, it remained unexplained why the Investigating Officer suppressed that fact and failed to associate even a single other resident of the house with the investigation process---Furthermore, the deceased was taken to the hospital by brothers of the appellant, who were also recorded as the identifiers of the dead body in both the inquest report and postmortem report---Being sons of the deceased, they would not be expected to remain indifferent in such a situation, which raised doubts about their actual presence at the crime scene at the relevant time---Absence of the names of eye-witnesses from the inquest and postmortem proceedings further reinforced skepticism regarding their credibility as eye-witnesses---Another significant factor supporting the absence of the eye-witnesses was the medical evidence---In the OPD slip, the Medical Officer noted that the deceased's pupils were fully dilated which suggested that she remained unattended at the crime scene, as no one was present to close her eyes, a common practice when attending to a dying person---Although that fact was not explicitly mentioned in the inquest report or the photographs of the deceased, however, the author of the Murasila, admitted that he had prepared the injury sheet based on the doctor's findings---This implied that the inquest report and injury sheet were completed at the time of the postmortem examination had over, meaning the deceased's eyes were likely closed by medical staff rather than any alleged eye-witness at the scene---Dilated pupils of the deceased served as a relevant indication that no one was present to attend to her immediately after the incident, further casting doubt on the presence of the eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 50 minutes in lodging the FIR---Consequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---As per record, there was clear overwriting on the recorded time and date and the author of the Murasila admitted that the time of the report had been altered from 20:45 to 22:45---Furthermore, there was an unexplained delay of approximately 50 minutes in recording the report---According to medical documents, the dead body had arrived at the hospital at 09:55 pm, just 15 minutes after the alleged occurrence, however, the Murasila was officially recorded at 10:45 pm, 50 minutes after the dead body had arrived at the hospital---Incharge of police at the hospital's casualty admitted that he was present at the hospital at the relevant time---Yet, despite his presence, he failed to record the report promptly and instead delayed it by 50 minutes without providing any plausible justification---Said unexplained delay raised serious doubts not only about the actual timing of the incident and the report but also about the presence of the alleged eye-witnesses at the crime scene---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant and his brother/sons of the appellant and deceased---According to the initial report, the complainant stated that he was inside his room at the relevant time and had requested his mother to prepare tea, after which she was attacked and stabbed by the appellant in the kitchen---However, the record did not indicate what had provoked the appellant to take such an extreme step, nor did the FIR mention any specific motive for the crime---Only allegation against the appellant was that he was a habitual drug addict who frequently quarreled with his wife, but no substantive evidence had been presented to support those claims---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of churri/weapon of offence---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---Admitted fact that the churri had neither been recovered from possession of the appellant nor on his pointation, therefore, in view of the absence of the link between the churri and the appellant, the same could not be considered in support of the remaining evidence---In addition, the Investigating Officer had acted in violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., without any explanation though the house of the appellant was surrounded by other houses and so fabrication of the evidence could not be ruled out in the circumstances---Even otherwise, when the ocular account had already been discarded, the corroborative evidence was of no avail to prosecution---Once the ocular account was disbelieved then no other evidence, even of a high degree and value, would be sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Admission of eye-witness casting doubt over the prosecution case---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/mother of complainant---Admission of eye-witnesses that they were not eye-witnesses and had no direct knowledge of the incident, particularly their late emergence from their room to the kitchen where the crime occurred raised serious doubts about the accuracy and reliability of their initial statements---Additionally, failure of eye-witnesses to identify crucial details, such as the weapon used and the complainant's admission that he had implicated his father/appellant at the instigation of the police, further suggested that his allegations were not based on direct observation but rather on secondary influence or hearsay---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not discharged its legal burden to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Said Naik Amal Shah VS State Hostile witness, evidence of---Scope---Mere retraction of a witness's earlier statement did not automatically render him hostile---Hostility and retraction were distinct legal concepts---Hostility referred to a witness's deliberate intent to deviate from the truth or act against the interests of the party that called them to testify---Retraction occurred when a witness withdraws or takes back his statement due to its inaccuracy, falsity or unreliability.

Said Naik Amal Shah vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1584 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ