Talib vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 640 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

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

Talib VS State Ss. 302(b), 396, 337-H(2), 148 & 149---Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, harabbah---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not proved---accused were charged for attempting to take away the cattle upon which brother of complainant made resistance, thereafter he was murdered by the accused persons through firing---Ocular account of the occurrence was advanced by the complainant/brother of the deceased and his paternal uncle---Scenario so advanced gave rise to the fact that deceased on receipt of fire arm injuries was lying at the spot in injured condition and the three persons including the eye-witnesses claimed their presence at the spot---Time and date of occurrence as advanced by these two eye-witnesses was 08:00 a.m, on 01.2.2014---Dead body remained lying un-attended at the spot till 12:30 p.m.---Complainant stated during the cross-examination that from 08:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. the dead body was lying at the place of incident on the ground in straight position with face towards sky---Complainant also claimed that till 12:30 p.m., though so many persons came there but they went away after seeing the dead body and again said that no other family member came at the place of incident---Complainant stated that he had brought a cot from the house of one "Z" and then they put the dead body over it and shifted the dead body without cot through a Datsun---Said witness further stated that he himself arranged the Datsun from 12:00 to 12:30 p.m.---Investigation Officer had not taken any such cot in possession nor pointed out regarding staining of any blood on any cot---There was no evidence regarding the staining of blood over the apparels of any of the witnesses and no witness had claimed in that regard that they had attended the victim in injured condition or that their body, hands or apparels got stained with the blood of the deceased---Complainant stated that victim died within their sight and had sustained fire arm injuries on his left shoulder, back and other parts of his body and his entire body had sustained fire arm injuries, whereas other witness stated that victim sustained injuries on the left side of his hand, left arm and on his abdomen---Claim of said two witnesses that the deceased died within their sight and advancement of seat of injuries could only be if they had attended victim in injured condition and in that eventuality the oozing of blood from the body of injured was a natural phenomenon but none of the said two witnesses received staining of blood on any part of the body or their apparels and the dead body kept on lying facing towards sky at the spot and the cot could be brought at 12:00 p.m., such conduct of the real brother and the nephew of the deceased was not appealable to the ordinary prudence and the natural expectancy could be that had they seen the occurrence, they could attend the injured and could endeavour to shift him to the hospital or at least to their house forthwith---Therefore, the fact of presence of said witnesses at the scene of occurrence required corroboration of some independent facts in support of their said claim---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Talib vs State Ss — 2026 YLR 640 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR