Bilawal Tahir vs Shakeel Ahmed Ss — 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149 & 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restraint, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---In the present case, the enmity between the parties was established from the record, because the contents of FIR also disclosed that on the fateful day, accused-persons, the complainant party in earlier case, called the complainant party for negotiation, however, deceived them and committed the occurrence---So, it could safely been said that there was a motive in the mind of the accused-persons involved in the present case against the complainant/deceased party to take revenge of the previous cases---Thus, the prosecution had successfully proved its motive beyond any shadow of doubt and the Trial Court had arrived at right conclusion---Even otherwise, if the prosecution fails to prove its motive even then an accused is not entitled to be discharged from the case, if his guilt is proved through direct evidence---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149 & 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 161---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restrain, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Delay in recording the statements of witnesses by police---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---Record showed that although statements under S.161, Cr.P.C, were recorded after sometime, however, such type of statements recorded after having served a subordinate purpose, were not treated as substantive evidence against the accused and no finding of guilty could be based on them---Person can be examined under this S.only in respect of question relating to the case i.e. with regard to the offence investigated---Moreover, delay in recording the statement under S.161, Cr.P.C, is not by itself sufficient to discard its value---Even otherwise, from the statements recorded by the witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C, it was found that they had not changed their version---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149 & 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restrains, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence---Reliance---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---Recovery of Kalashnikov was allegedly made on the pointation of convict-appellant, "B", and recovery memo. was prepared in presence of witnesses, which was corroborative piece of evidence and further strengthened the prosecution case---In presence of witnesses, recoveries of incriminating materials were made and recovery memos. were prepared---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149 & 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restrain, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Presence of accused at the time and place of occurrence proved---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---according to record, the allegation levelled against the convict-appellant "M" along with other accused was their being present at the place occurrence armed with Kalashnikov---Eye-witnesses during their statements also affirmed the presence of the convict-appellant "M" and firing---Crime weapon was recovered by the police on his pointation---Thus, after going through the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, it could safely be said that convict-appellant "M" was part of unlawful assembly and played an active role in the commission of the offence---Proof of specific overt act was not necessary while determining the guilt of accused being member of unlawful assembly and it would be sufficient, if the prosecution was able to establish that accused being member of unlawful assembly shared the common object of assembly, and same accused in furtherance of that common object of unlawful assembly committed offence---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149, 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restraint, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Ocular account of the incident proved---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by three eye-witnesses---all the three eye-witnesses appeared before the Court, got recorded their statements and completely supported the prosecution version---From perusal of the statements of eye-witnesses, it revealed that they had unanimously supported the prosecution version and were put to lengthy cross-examination by the defense, however, nothing had been extracted from them, which might suggestive of the fact that eye-witnesses had totally recorded a false statement on account of enmity---Deposition of eye-witnesses seemed to be natural---One of the eye-witnesses was an important witness in the present case, because, he was present in the vehicle along with the deceased---Record showed that said witness also got injured during the occurrence, however, luckily survived---Record also showed that he received multiples injuries on the body and his medical report was also appended with the record---Thus, said witness was a natural witness---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149, 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restraint, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Chance witnesses, evidence of---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---Witnesses produced by the prosecution were natural and they were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Even otherwise, merely on the ground that the eye-witnesses were the chance witnesses the case of the prosecution could not be smashed out particularly, when the prosecution had succeeded to prove the presence of the witnesses satisfactorily---However, if the prosecution fail to establish their presence for making the evidence then the corroboration is necessary for making the evidence admissible---Testimony of the chance witnesses should be carefully examined---Yardstick to judge the testimony of the chance witnesses, is to examine and take into account the statements of eye-witnesses---Eye-witnesses remained consistent on the main points and made their statements in line with each other---all the eye-witnesses proved their presence at the relevant time, satisfactorily---No material discrepancies had been brought on record---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed S. 417---appeal against acquittal---Scope---after the acquittal, accused enjoys double presumption of innocence---acquittal order is not to be interfered with until and unless it is found perverse and illegal. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Interested witness---Reliance---Scope---An interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused-person. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Bilawal Tahir VS Shakeel Ahmed Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(i), 341, 147, 148, 149 & 109---arms act (XX of 1965), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-damiyah, wrongful restraint, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, abetment, possession of illicit weapons---appreciation of evidence---Material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses---accused were charged for committing murder of two persons of complainant party and also causing injuries to a person by firing---appellant alleged that there were material discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses, however he could not point out any major contradiction, which could shatter the case of the prosecution---While appreciating the evidence, the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies and such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored---accused could not claim premium of such minor discrepancies---If importance be given to such insignificant inconsistencies then there would hardly be any conviction---appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Bilawal Tahir vs Shakeel Ahmed Ss — 2025 YLR 1834 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR