MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1616 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 352 & 354---Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force used against someone, except when there is grave and sudden provocation, assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inclusion of witnesses through a supplementary statement---Effect---Petitioner/accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting danda blows and then he subjected complainant and her daughter to physical assault and tore their clothes, in an attempt to outrage their modesty---Record revealed that in the FIR, two witnesses were not mentioned as eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence during which the petitioner inflicted fatal harm upon the deceased, rather they were included as witnesses through a supplementary statement submitted by the complainant later on the same day, i.e., 20.07.2012, when the crime was reported---Said subsequent inclusion of the said two witnesses merited special scrutiny since the prosecution "gave up" the other alleged eye-witnesses, as well as the complainant's injured daughter, who were actually mentioned in the FIR, preferring to rely only on the testimony of the former two---Complainant had sought to explain the belated inclusion of alleged eyewitnesses by stating that she was in a panicked and confused state of mind owing to her husband's critical condition---Said plea did not, however, persuade considering that two witnesses were not only alleged eyewitnesses credited with having intervened in an attempt to rescue the deceased but were also mentioned as the complainant's saviours when she and her daughter were being subjected to assault---Moreover, the subsequent witnesses were known to the complainant, one being her deceased husband's cousin, and other her real brother---Moreover, it was indeed alarming that the complainant failed to recall those relatives among the four individuals who intervened on her behalf when she was registering her complaint---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ASGHAR vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1616 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR