Muhammad Arif vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1854 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

Muhammad Arif VS State Ss. 302(b), 201 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of an offence or giving false information to screen an offender from punishment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence not proved---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Alleged occurrence took place at 08:30 a.m., and the dead body was received at the hospital at 10:30 a.m., meaning thereby that the dead body of the deceased was lying on the spot for two hours---However, still deceased was not taken to the hospital and it was hard to believe and was against the human conduct that who had received firearm injury kept bleeding on the spot for such a long period and was brought to the hospital subsequently---Dead body was brought to the hospital by a constable and the complainant and eye-witnesses were not shown with the deceased at the hospital---Said fact also proved that both the eye-witnesses and complainant were not present at the spot---Had eye-witnesses been present at the spot, they necessarily would have taken the deceased to the hospital---Neither the complainant nor the alleged eye-witnesses had received any injury as stated by the eye-witnesses that the appellants made 09/10 fires---In such circumstances after indiscriminate firing, there was no chance of the eye-witnesses to escape unhurt---Claim of the complainant and the witnesses was that they were miraculously saved in the midst of the firing---Blessing eye-witnesses with such incredible consideration and showing them such favour was implausible and opposed to the natural conduct of any accused---If the witnesses were left alive, they would depose against the accused, even then the appellants and co-accused did not cause any injury to them---Such behavior would run counter to natural human conduct and behavior on part of accused---Hence, the complainant and eye-witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and did not witness the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal filed by accused-appellants against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Arif vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1854 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ