TAHSEEN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 2018 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.

TAHSEEN ULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 392 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Joint liabilities of petitioners---Coordinated conduct of petitioners indicating pre-planning---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they committed murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by firing during robbery---In the present case, the prosecution had successfully establishedthat both the petitioners arrived at the scene of the occurrence duly armed---One of them, "TU", forcibly snatched rupees one lac from the complainant and then committed the act of firing, resulting in the death of deceased, while petitioner "SK" positioned himself in front of the complainant's truck, evidently to prevent escape or resistance---Such coordinated conduct clearly indicated a prior meeting of minds and preplanning---Actions of petitioner "SK" facilitated the offence by enabling his co-petitioner to execute the fatal act without obstruction---In offences involving common intention or joint enterprise, the precise role played by each individual might vary, yet liability attached equally to all participants if the act was done in furtherance of common intention---It was necessary that each member of the group must perform the same act; rather, the existence of common design and participatory conduct was sufficient to invoke joint liability---In this view of the matter, the non-attribution of the firing role to petitioner "SK" was of no legal consequence in the presence of cogent evidence establishing his participation in furtherance of the common intention with his co-accused---Said petitioner's conduct before, during, and after the commission of the offence, viewed in totality, brought his case squarely within the ambit of Section 34, PPC, rendering him equally liable for the consequences of the offence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the petitioners beyond any shadow of doubt, however due to some extenuating/mitigating circumstance in the matter of sentence, the instant petition to the extent of petitioner "TU", was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed in the terms that his conviction under Section 302(b) P.P.C was maintained, however, the sentence of death awarded to him was commuted to rigorous imprisonment for life---As regards conviction and sentence of petitioner "SK", no ground was found for interference in the impugned judgment---Petition to the extent of petitioner "SK" was therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

TAHSEEN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 2018 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR