Attaullah vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 792 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.

Attaullah VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of sole eye-witness at the spot---Chance witness---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by sole eye-witness, who happened to be a chance witness and his claim to have seen the occurrence appeared to be a claim which could be accepted only with a lump of salt---Said witness deposed with the depiction that he being a Rickshaw driver by profession, happened to arrive at the spot of the incident, as soon as passengers were leaving the seats, when all out of sudden, he saw a person storming towards another person sitting on a chair in a shop, aimed a pistol at him and made a fire shot, which hit on the right hand of the victim; he in retaliation tried to escape out from the reach and firing range of the accused by trying to enter into a house but the accused further made a fire, which hit his abdominal area, and another fire made upon him strick on the chest of the injured; the eye-witness further deposed that he made an attempt to save the skin of the victim but the offender made two ineffective fire shots upon the rescuer who narrowly escaped from the fire shots---Said witness claimed to be present on the spot, witnessed the whole episode and he initially took the injured into the rickshaw up to a particular place and subsequently, brought him to the hospital in a taxi but ironically, he was not identifier of the dead body of the deceased before the local police as well as before the doctor, rather it was identified by another witness---Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place adjacent to the house of deceased and besides the said witness, many other persons, shopkeepers and neighbours also were attracted to the spot, however, neither the taxi driver nor any inhabitant of the locality had been produced as witness during the trial---If said persons could furnish their account it would have strengthened the case of the prosecution---Details of injuries, disclosed by the witness were also materially different from that discernable from the medical evidence---Admittedly, the sole eye-witness was not familiar with the deceased as well as appellant and per his version, he came to know about the name of appellant subsequent to recording his statement under S.161 Cr.P.C but on the contrary, his S.161 statement purportedly contained name of the appellant, which fact alone was sufficient to create doubt in the prosecution story---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Attaullah vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 792 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ