Muhammad Irfan vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1934 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 Irfan VS State S. 380---Theft in a dwelling house, tent, or vessel---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Accused was charged for taking away the mobile of complainant from his shop---Complainant mostly reiterated the contents of his fard-e-bayan, however, to some extent he derailed from his earlier statement---During the course of cross-examination, complainant admitted that the FIR was not promptly lodged on the day of occurrence rather the same was registered on 1st August 2024---Complainant deposed that he by himself did not witness the stealing of mobile, voluntarily stated that through CCTV footage he came to know that his mobile phone was stolen---Complainant deposed that the Police Officials did not come to his shop, while contrary to the same, Investigating Officer in cross-examination stated that during the investigation first of all he met with complainant on the place of occurrence---Evidence of recovery witness was also contradictory to the other witnesses---Recovery witness in his cross-examination admitted that the face of person in the alleged footage was not clear to assume about his identity---Eye-witness of the occurrence, who was present in the shop in whose presence the accused took away the mobile---Statement of that witness did not corroborate the statements of rest of the witnesses---Eye-witness deposed in his cross-examination that the police officials came to their shop, while contrary to the same, the depositions of the rest of the witnesses were silent with to arrival/visit of police personnel---Said witness admitted that he did not mention in his statement under S.161,Cr.P.C., that earlier he watched the video in which the accused had stolen the mobile phone---Besides, said witness showed his ignorance with regard to the time and place of arrest of accused---Thus, such glaring admissions and contradictions created serious dent in the case of prosecution---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Irfan vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 1934 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ