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---Ocular account proved---Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they committed murder of the brother-in-law of complainant by firing during robbery---Complainant furnished a detailed ocular account of the incident---Though it was a matter of record that the petitioners were not named by complainant in the FIR, but that omission, rather than casting doubt on the complainant's veracity, showed his bona fides and reflected a lack of malice or intent to falsely implicate anyone in random---Had the complainant harboured any animosity or ulterior motive against the petitioners, he could have easily named them in the FIR---Instead, the complainant confined himself to narrating the incident in a truthful and straight forward manner---In the FIR, complainant described the general features, physical appearance, and clothing of the two unknown assailants involved in the commission of the offence---Petitioner "SK" was apprehended by Inspector on 06.04.2016 while he was on patrol duty with other Police Officials---Petitioner "SK" upon noticing the police attempted to flee but was overpowered---Upon personal search of said petitioner, an iron fist was recovered---During interrogation said petitioner not only admitted his involvement in the offence but also disclosed the name of other petitioner, as his co-accomplice in the commission of the crime---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