Citation Name: 2025 YLR 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Suleman vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Suleman VS State Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account not proved---Identification of assailants during the incident doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing during the commission of robbery---Prosecution's case rested almost exclusively on the evidence of the sole eye-witness to the incident, who was real son of the deceased---Said witness stated that on 19.08.2018 at about 10.30 pm he and the deceased went to purchase cattle food on his motor bike---When they reached near a wedding hall, two robbers came on a motor bike and intercepted them and tried to rob them---On the resistance of father of said witness, one of the accused fired on his father hitting his face who fell to the ground whilst both the robbers escaped---However, it was a night time incident and there was no evidence of there being any light available at the scene of the incident---Eye-witness did not know the appellants before---Eye-witness gave no description of either of the appellants in his S.161 Cr.P.C statement which in any event was given five days after the incident which delay itself was often fatal to the prosecution case---Mother of eye-witness lodged her FIR four days later based on the hearsay evidence of her son but did not state that her son told her that he could recognize the assailants if he saw them again---Incident would have occurred quickly in the heat of the moment and it was unlikely that the eye-witness got a good look at the assailants over such short period of time especially as it was dark and he did not know them before and he most likely would have been in a state of panic---Although the eye-witness identified the appellants before an identification parade held five months after the incident but he had admitted before the identification parade that he could not identify the assailants as it was too dark and he gave no description of them---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Suleman vs State Ss — 2025 YLR 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR