Dying Declaration Judgements by Aamir Khan Adv - PDF

Your Search returned total 129 records from 50 - 100
Your Search returned total 129 records from 100 - 129
Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 1461 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case

GUL ZARIN VS FAZAL KHALIQ
Ss. 302(b) & 324---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd---Petition for
leave to appeal challenging acquittal---Contentions on behalf of prosecution that in the face of overwhelming evidence
comprising of witnesses that included an injured to support a dying declaration, there was no occasion for the High
Court to acquit the accused, blamed alongside the absconding co-accused for the crime in the backdrop of a motive
over immovable property, resulting into the loss of two lives; that accused remained an absconder for over a quarter of
a century with his accomplices still away from law, to finally earn an acquittal; that non-performance of autopsy on
the dead, being a practice in line with local custom did not adversely reflect upon the prosecution case inasmuch as the
homicidal deaths of both the deceased remained a common ground throughout----Supreme Court granted leave to
consider the said contentions of the prosecution.

ABDUL KHALIQ VS State
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---dying declaration made in presence of doctor corroborated by
recovery of weapon and medical evidence---Shortly after the incident, the deceased was rushed to a hospital, where a
doctor (prosecution witness) attended to him---According to the doctor's deposition, he endorsed/attested statement
given by the deceased, which was subsequently treated as a dying declaration---Doctor was subjected to extensive
cross-examination but remained unambiguously categorical about deceased's capacity to communicate at the time
when he examined him in an injured condition---Doctor further confirmed that the statement of deceased was recorded
in his presence, and he denied connivance with the police---Evidence given by the doctor was found to be
straightforward and confidence inspiring throughout without any taint---Mere presence of relatives who brought the
deceased in injured condition to the hospital would not by itself impair the evidentiary value of statement made by the
deceased, while in critical condition---In his last moments, the deceased confined his case to the accused only instead
of attributing second shot to the co-accused---dying declaration was further corroborated by the weapon recovered
from the accused at the time of his arrest, found wedded with the casings secured from the spot and consistent with the
injuries that cost the deceased his life---Statement of a witness, who was a resident of the same locality, was in line
with the details of events given in the dying declaration---Prosecution's failure on motive and acquittal of co-accused,
assigned an inconsequential and vastly distinguishable role, did not have any bearing on the case of accused, which
was firmly structured on more than one piece of evidence---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was
refused.
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 719 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case

WAHEED VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---Scope---dying declaration was a statement of a deceased person as to
cause of his death when he was at the point of death---No doubt, sanctity was attached to a dying declaration because
a dying man was not expected to tell lies, but being weak kind of evidence, it required close scrutiny and
corroboration from circumstantial evidence.

WAHEED VS State
Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46--- Qatl-
i-amd, robbery, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of
terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---dying declaration not supported by medical evidence---
Scope---Accused were charged that they murdered the Police Official/brother of the complainant after committing
robbery---Case was registered on the information given by deceased, then injured, to the complainant---Record
showed that the deceased received injuries by means of a firearm on occipital area of skull margin inverted i.e. 1 x 1
cm wound of entrance and exit wound of bullet were 2 x 2 cm on the left side of the skull of the deceased---Second
injury was firearm entrance wound on the backside lumber region 1 x 1 cm margin inverted (Rt. side) and the exit
wound was on abdomen of right side 2 x 2 cm---In view of the said injuries on most vital parts, capability and ability
of the deceased, then injured, to make statement/talk was beyond the comprehension of a prudent mind---Alleged
dying declaration of the deceased, then injured, had not been corroborated by any circumstantial evidence to prove the
participation of the accused in the commission of the offence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in
circumstances.

WAHEED VS State
Ss.302, 392, 353 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, assault or criminal force to
deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---
Benefit of doubt---Accused were charged that they murdered the Police Official/brother of the complainant after
committing robbery---Case was registered on the information given by deceased, then injured to the complainant---If
it was presumed that the deceased told about the accused at the place of occurrence, then why on the oral report of the
deceased FIR was not lodged---Statement of SHO was not recorded by the Investigation Officer under S. 161,
Cr.P.C.---Investigating Officer died natural death and the SHO appeared on behalf of the late Investigating Officer
and produced site plan, challan of the case, memo of the place of occurrence---Had SHO been present at the place of
occurrence in whose presence the deceased allegedly made dying declaration, his statement would have been recorded
by the Investigating Officer, but the same had not been done which created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case-
--Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1323 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

KHAISTA MUHAMMAD VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 109---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46-
--Qatl-i-amd, abetment, possessing unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---
dying declaration supported by medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his
daughter/complainant by firing---Lady/complainant in her dying declaration, had named her real father and brother for
causing her the injuries---Certificate showing that the lady had been conscious and capable of giving her statement
had also been obtained from the lady doctor which was exhibited in evidence---Medical Officer had been examined in
support thereof---Medical Officer had been cross-examined by the defence side but nowhere had they disputed the fact
that the lady had been conscious and able to give her statement to the police officer---Medical Officer who had
examined the complainant had given her certificate that the lady had been conscious and in senses at the time of
recording of her statement, and she had stood by said certificate during the course of her examination before the
Court---No reason existed to disbelieve her statement in that respect---Article 46 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 had
made dying declaration as admissible in evidence and same could therefore be safely relied upon---Circumstances
established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused, however due to some compelling
circumstances, death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment---Appeal was partially allowed.

KHAISTA MUHAMMAD VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 109---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), S. 15---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, possessing
unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---Accused was charged for committing
murder of his daughter/complainant by firing---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by two ladies---
Record showed that the occurrence had taken place inside the house---One of the eye-witnesses had been a minor
daughter of the deceased lady while the other woman had been the lady hosting the deceased---In the given
circumstances, their presence at the scene of occurrence had been very much natural and confidence inspiring---Said
fact that the deceased lady while recording her dying declaration could not name them as eye-witnesses might not be
taken as a reason for excluding their testimonies---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case
against the accused, however due to some compelling circumstances, death sentence was reduced to life
imprisonment---Appeal was partially allowed.
Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 62 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case
WAKIL KHAN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---No doubt, dying declaration was an important piece of evidence and that
sanctity was attached to the dying declaration because a dying man was not expected to tell a lie, but it was equally
true that it was always considered as a weak type of evidence being un-tested by cross-examination---Only reason for
accepting the same was the belief phenomenon of the court of law that a person apprehending death due to injuries,
caused to him, was ordinarily not expected to speak a falsehood---To believe or disbelieve a dying declaration thus
was left to the ordinary human judgment, however, the court always insisted upon strong independent and reliable
corroboratory evidence for the sake of safe dispensation of justice---Relying blindly and without proper scrutiny on
dying declaration, would be no less dangerous approach on the part of the courts of law.

WAKIL KHAN VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of
evidence---dying declaration---Unnatural conduct of scribe---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused
made firing upon the complainant, who was hit and injured, on the following day injured succumbed to the injuries---
Scribe of the dying declaration stated that as the patient was conscious and capable to talk so he did not feel the need
either to consult a doctor before the report or to ask for a certificate---Conduct of the scribe was not only abnormal but
unnatural as well---No denial to the fact that the matter was reported in the emergency room of D.H.Q Hospital but
despite the availability of doctor and other concerned the scribe went reckless knowing the fact that his conduct would
put a greater impact to the prosecution case, as the only available evidence was the statement of the complainant---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against
conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJN 16 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

MASHAD ALI VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-
amd, common intention, possessing illicit weapon---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Complainant, then
injured, in emergency room of the hospital made report that accused and co-accused persons fired at him, as a result,
he got hit---Injured, later on, succumbed to the injuries---Dispute over a shop had been alleged as motive behind the
occurrence---dying declaration of the deceased, then injured, had been recorded in the shape of Murasila by official
witness/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police---dying declaration/Murasila showed that at the time of making report, the
deceased, then injured, was fully conscious---dying declaration bore the thumb impression of the deceased as well as
signature of its author---Factum of orientation and consciousness of the deceased, then injured, at the time of making
report could also be gathered from the testimony of Medical Officer, who medically examined the deceased, then
injured, deposed that the deceased, then injured, was haemodynamically stable---Both, the author of Murasila and the
Medical Officer, had been subjected to cross-examination by the defence but nothing was brought from them that the
deceased was not capable to make statement/report---Both the said witnesses had established the factum of
consciousness of the deceased, then injured, and his capability to talk and make statement---Facts remained that the
deceased then injured remained alive for more than fifteen days after the occurrence, which showed that he was fully
conscious, well oriented in time and space and capable to make a statement/report---Appeal against conviction was
dismissed accordingly.

MASHAD ALI VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing illicit
weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Corroboration---Accused was charged
for committing murder of the deceased then injured/complainant---Murasila/dying declaration revealed that the
deceased, then injured, had directly charged the accused with specific role of firing at him---Dying declaration of the
deceased, then injured, had been corroborated by eye-witness in his statement---Said witness had been subjected to
lengthy and taxing cross-examination, but nothing beneficial to defence could be extracted from him---Said witness
corroborated the dying declaration of the deceased, then injured and remained consistent with the version set forth by
the deceased, then injured in his dying declaration---Witness corroborated the dying declaration on all material
particulars of the occurrence i.e. day, date, time and place of occurrence as well as the role of the accused and of co-
accused---Like deceased, then injured, eye-witness also charged the accused with specific role of firing at the
deceased---No doubt, witness was the uncle of the deceased but on the sole ground of his close relationship with the
deceased, his testimony could not be discarded because he had furnished a straightforward and confidence inspiring
testimony corroborated by circumstantial evidence in the shape of recoveries and supported by medical evidence---No
evidence, whatsoever, had been brought by the defence to prove any enmity or grudge of eye-witness with the
accused---Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, supported the ocular account
furnished and the dying declaration of the deceased, then injured---Circumstances established that the prosecution had
proved the guilt of appellant up to the hilt through dying declaration of the deceased, then injured corroborated by
testimony of eye-witness, supported by medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence in the shape of
recoveries---Trial Court had rightly held accused guilty of the offence to which no exception could be taken---No
evidence had been brought on record to prove the motive advanced by the prosecution, therefore, the Trial Court was
justified by not awarding capital sentence to the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

MASHAD ALI VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Sanctity is attached to dying declaration because a dying man is not expected to
tell lie---dying declaration, requires close scrutiny and corroboration and if court is satisfied about its genuineness and
truthfulness, dying declaration could be acted upon without any corroboration.

MASHAD ALI VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing illicit
weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of incriminating material---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged
for committing murder of the deceased then injured/complainant---Record showed that recovery of blood from the
place of the deceased his last worn bloodstained garments coupled with positive serologist report in respect thereof
corroborated the dying declaration of the deceased, then injured, and ocular account of eye-witness---Testimony of
eye-witness and Investigation Officer were in line with each other on the point that the crime pistol recovered from
possession of the accused at the spot by official witness was produced to the Investigating Officer at the spot, who
took the same in his possession in presence of eye-witness---Said pistol along with the crime empty was sent to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, report whereof was in positive---Ocular/direct evidence furnished by eye-witness was
trustworthy and confidence inspiring, therefore, in such circumstances, there would hardly be any significance of any
corroboration from recovery of pistol---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

ZAKA ULLAH VS State
S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration,
reliance on---Scope---Accused was charged that he sprinkled petrol on the complainant/deceased and then kindled fire
with lighter, and victim later succumbed to the injuries---Record showed that dying declaration of the deceased was
made in the presence of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer in hospital, within one hour and twenty minutes of
the occurrence and accused was the sole perpetrator nominated therein---Since victim died subsequently, hence her
statement was used during trial as "dying declaration" and was projected the bastion of prosecution case---Medical
Officer affixed her signature upon statement of victim as certificate of correctness---Medical Officer gave opinion on
a police query that victim was fit to make statement---Neither the Medical Officer nor the Investigating Officer was
either related with deceased or had any affair of abhorrence with the accused, thus by no stretch they could be treated
as mendacious---Nothing as such was available from which it might have even remotely insinuate that deceased was
pitched in an affair of grouse or grudge with accused so as to substitute him in her dying declaration as the sole
perpetrator of crime by letting the actual culprit go scot-free---Evidence of dying declaration was found to inspire
confidence, thus conviction could be awarded thereupon---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification
in sentence.

ZAKA ULLAH VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 336-B---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused by corrosive substance---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence,
reduction in---Accused was charged that he sprinkled petrol on the complainant/ deceased and then kindled fire with
lighter, the victim was later succumbed to the injuries---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two
witnesses---Said witnesses attracted to the crime scene after hearing the hue and cry of deceased and saw her engulfed
in fire---Said witnesses honestly admitted that they had neither seen accused pouring gasoline upon the deceased nor
igniting her to fire---Said aspect was vociferously projected by the defence for excluding the testimony of said
witnesses from consideration but it positively reflected upon their honesty and credibility---Deposition of said
witnesses was in the nature of res gestae and was admissible in evidence---Circumstances and facts of the case showed
that both the witnesses reached the spot immediately after the occurrence and found victim engulfed in fire and also
heard her crying that accused did it---Eye-witness further deposed that he had seen accused running from the spot---
Deposition of both the witnesses inescapably had come within the purview of Art. 19, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Said
event forming res gestae occurred in a manner that it could safely be stated as connected with the main occurrence and
could not be separated therefrom---However, there were two parts of the prosecution case, first part of prosecution
case comprised of the main incident wherein burn injuries were caused to victim and second one related to her death--
-Burn injuries to the victim caused by the accused had been established beyond shred of any suspicion from
the dying declaration of deceased as well as from the statements of two witnesses---However, the prosecution was
found to have failed in proving beyond scintilla of any doubt that the deceased died in foreign country due to no other
reason but because of burn injuries caused by the accused---In order to prove the cause of death of victim, the
prosecution solely banked upon Letter of Interpol and Certificate of Death issued by district court of said foreign
country---Both the documents were brought on record through the statement of Assistant District Public Prosecutor
apparently under S. 510, Cr.P.C.---Admittedly, through that provision, only the documents purporting to be report of
Chemical Examiner, Serologist, Finger Print Expert, Firearm Expert appointed by the Government were admissible in
a criminal trial, without calling them as witnesses---In that backdrop, Letter of Interpol and Certificate of Death, since
were not issued by experts appointed by Government of Pakistan in terms of S. 510, Cr.P.C., thus were not per se
admissible under the foregoing provision---No evidence was available on record to prove with certainty that the
deceased died only due to the injuries received during the crime in question, thus the conviction and sentence of
accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was unsustainable---However, the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the burn
injuries were caused to the victim by none other than the accused---Accused thus, was found guilty of offence under
S. 336-B, P.P.C. and accordingly sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of fourteen years--- Appeal against
conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.
Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1594 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ADNAN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---dying declaration was regarded as a weak piece of evidence as it was not
subjected to cross-examination.

MUHAMMAD ADNAN VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 459, 201 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd,
criminal trespass, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---
dying declaration, reliance on---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of son of the complainant and
injured two other persons by inflicting hammer blows---Record showed that the deceased had fully implicated accused
in the murder, however some doubts about the authenticity and reliability of said dying declaration had been seen---
dying declaration was usually given and relied upon if a person faced imminent and certain death as it was presumed
that he would not make a false statement before going to meet his Maker---In the present case, deceased who made the
dying declaration died approximately 6 to 7 days after he made it and as such it was doubtful whether it could be
termed as a dying declaration as his statement relatively could have been easily recorded before a Magistrate under S.
164, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of
doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1631 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Accused were charged that they threw
petrol on the complainant and set him on fire and he succumbed to the injuries during treatment--- Admittedly, FIR
was lodged by the complainant/ deceased himself while he was under treatment at Burns Ward of Civil Hospital
before Police Official, which had been believed and acted upon in convicting the accused persons although their
attention to that crucial piece of evidence was not drawn to and no explanation thereof was sought from them at the
time of their examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Record showed that no question as to statement of eye-witness
under S. 164, Cr.P.C. recorded before the Judicial Magistrate---Motive for commission of offence, which was custody
of the minor (son of the deceased) aged about 04 years who was in the custody of the accused persons at the time of
the incident, was asked---In the peculiar circumstances of the case, Failure on the part of the court to draw the
attention of the accused persons to the dying declaration as well as statement of eye-witness recorded under S. 164,
Cr.P.C., before the Judicial Magistrate, which had been used against them and had also been acted upon, had caused
prejudice to them and had also resulted in miscarriage as well as failure of justice and as such, it was a case of an
illegality---Had the accused persons been given any opportunity to explain such important pieces of evidence, they
might have given some plausible explanation or might have led some evidence to rebut and meet the same---Accused
should be given notice of the point/points which he must meet in order to exonerate himself---Such was not mere a
formality but essential part of the trial---Appeal was allowed and case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction
to record statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. afresh by putting all the incriminating pieces of evidence to him.
Citation Name: 2021 YLR 785 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS State
reliance on---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the complainant---In the present case, the
complainant/ deceased himself reported the matter in an injured condition which itself manifested that the occurrence
took place---Initial report of complainant/ deceased could also be considered as dying declaration because at that time
he was in serious pain and thereafter died, thus, the statement of the deceased itself was sufficient to prove the guilt of
the convict---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.
BABAR HUSSAIN VS State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 378---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Case of two versions---
Accused and his co-accused persons escaped from the scene of occurrence while resorting to indiscriminate firing
which as per prosecution case ultimately had hit one of the co-accused who succumbed to the injuries after five to
seven days---In the FIR allegation of firing was ascribed to all the accused while escaping from the scene of
occurrence, whereas, the dying declaration of deceased-co-accused and application moved by his wife before the
police alleged that the firing was made by the accused---Allegation against the accused was of two versions, one
advanced in the crime report, the other brought on the record in the shape of statement of deceased-co-accused as well
as mentioned in the application filed by his widow---In such circumstances, culpability of accused could not be
adjudicated at present stage rather it would be decided by the Trial Court after recording of evidence during the course
of trial---Case against accused was one of further inquiry falling under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C. entitling him for the relief of
bail---Accused was granted bail accordingly.
Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2242 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

QAIZER KHAN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Ingredients---Prosecution had to establish that whether the maker of
dying declaration had the physical capacity to make the same; whether the maker had opportunity to identify the
assailants; whether there was a chance of mis-identification on the part of dying man in identifying and naming the
attackers; whether it was free from prompting from any outside quarter; whether the witness, who heard the deceased
making his statement, heard him correctly and whether his evidence could be relied upon.

reliance on---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the complainant---Prosecution had erected the
structure of its case on the dying declaration of deceased as the report was stated to be made by the deceased then
injured in the hospital---No certificate was requested from the Medical Officer concerned that the patient was oriented
in time and place---Murasila had not been attested from the Medical Officer and even the Medical Officer in his
statement did not mention that the injured was capable to talk and neither his pulse was recorded and so the blood
pressure---Prosecution failed to establish that the report was made by the deceased then injured and that at the time of
report, deceased was free from all influences---Record was silent as to why the injured witness was brought with an
abnormal delay to the hospital with no first aid and when left unattended, could he retain his faculties to talk and
understand---Circumstances established that statement of deceased could not be treated as "dying declaration"---
Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Art. 46---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---Scope---No doubt, dying declaration was an important piece of
evidence and that sanctity was attached to the dying declaration, because a dying man was not expected to tell lie, but
the same was always considered as weak type of evidence being un-tested by cross-examination.

FAQIR SAID VS State
Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---
dying declaration, reliance on---Scope---Record showed that dying declaration of the deceased was recorded in the
hospital, but that was in the presence of eye-witness/father-in-law of deceased and it was signed by him---Possibility
of prompting and putting the names in the mouth of the deceased then injured could not be ruled out---
dying declaration recorded in presence of relatives was looked into with suspicion by the courts while appraising the
same notwithstanding the condition of the deceased then injured at the time of report.

RAFAQAT ULLAH alias PAKA VS UMAR FAYAZ (DECEASED) through brother Muhammad Riaz
S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---
Infirmities---Scope---Prosecution case was that the complainant in injured condition reported that accused, duly armed
with firearm, made firing at him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries---Later on, the injured complainant
succumbed to the injuries---Record showed that soon after arrival of the injured to the hospital, his report was taken
down by official witness/HC---Scribe stated that the injured was received conscious and his report was taken down,
but his stance could not be accepted as correct as he did not observe the legal formalities---Despite that the report was
made in the emergency room of hospital, why the scribe did not feel the need to call for the Doctor and to ask for a
certificate as to whether the injured was oriented in time and space and to ascertain his capability to talk---Said
witness stated that at the time of report the doctor was not present and that it was after the report that the injured was
sent to the doctor along with injury sheet for his Medico-legal examination---Said attitude of the scribe could not be
ignored and that fact had created dents in the prosecution case and it had put a question mark to the capability of the
deceased then injured but able to talk---Medical Officer, who examined the complainant and prepared his Medico-
Legal Report, stated that the injured was conscious and capable to talk and that he had given those observations in the
Medico-Legal Report of the injured---Record was silent as to where from Medical Officer had confirmed that the
injured was conscious, oriented in time and space, when there was nothing on record that either his pulse was noted or
blood pressure was checked---Said witness was thoroughly cross-examined who stated that soon after bringing the
injured before him he observed the injured in severe shock and without wasting time the patient was referred for
onward management to a surgeon---Witness had admitted that the patient was in the state of severe shock, then how it
was held that he was conscious---No certificate was given by the doctor regarding the condition of the injured and
even the report of the injured was not taken down in his presence---Wilful attempt existed on part of the prosecution
and the doctor to make the case a success--- Court could not exclude the possibility that the deceased was unable to
talk and that no report was made by him---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case
against the accused--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Court always insisted upon strong, independent and reliable corroboratory
evidence for sake of safe dispensation of justice and relying blindly and without proper scrutiny on dying declaration,
would be dangerous approach on the part of the court of law.

Art. 46---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---Principles---No doubt, dying declaration is an important piece of
evidence and that sanctity is attached to the dying declaration, because a dying man is not expected to tell lie,
however, it is equally true that it is always considered as weak type of evidence being un-tested by cross-examination,
therefore, it puts the courts on guard and great care is demanded to ascertain that; whether the maker had the physical
capacity to make the dying declaration; whether the maker had opportunity to identify the assailant/assailants; whether
there was a chance of mis-identification on the part of dying man in identifying and naming the attacker/attackers;
whether it was free from prompting from any outside quarter and the witness who heard the deceased making his
statement, heard him correctly and whether that evidence could be relied upon.

MOMIN KHAN VS State
Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-
amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration, reliance on---
Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused duly armed with firearms made firing upon
the complainant party, due to which three persons sustained injuries---Complainant/injured succumbed to injuries---
No doubt, author of murasila and Medical Officer in his Medico Legal Report had mentioned that the deceased, then
injured, was conscious and well oriented in time and space, but the firearms entry wounds on the person of the
deceased, then injured, reflected otherwise which made the statements of the Medical Officer and author of murasila
doubtful---Autopsy report of the deceased then injured, showed that he had sustained firearm entry wound on right
side of forehead measuring above lateral boarder of eyebrow with corresponding exit on right side face below eye
from nose---Deceased, then injured, had also sustained firearm entry wound on right side front of his abdomen with
corresponding exit on back of his abdomen---Capability and ability of the deceased, then injured, to make
statement/talk was beyond the comprehension of a prudent mind in view of the said injuries on most vital parts---
Circumstances clearly suggested that the initial report had not been recorded on the statement of the deceased, then
injured, rather it was a manipulated document which did not find corroboration from any direct or circumstantial
evidence---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MOMIN KHAN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---dying declaration was a statement of a deceased person as to cause of his death
when he was at the point of death---No doubt, sanctity was attached to a dying declaration because a dying man was
not expected to tell lies, but being weak kind of evidence, it required close scrutiny and corroboration from
circumstantial evidence.

ZAHIR SHAH VS AYAZ ALI (DECEASED)
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution case was that the accused
made firing upon the complainant party, as a result, complainant got hit and sustained injuries---Motive behind the
occurrence was an oral altercation taken place between complainant and accused---Initially, the case was registered
under S. 324, P.P.C. but later on the complainant succumbed to injuries, therefore, S. 302, P.P.C. was inserted in the
FIR---Main thrust of the defence arguments was the dying declaration as to the bullets landed on the vital organs of
the body and in such eventuality the injured lost his senses what to say of full alertness to the time and space---All was
engineered to give an impression that all was well with the injured at the time of report---No denial to the fact that the
report was prompt in all respects taken down in presence of the doctor duly verified by one of the eye-witnesses and
endorsed by the doctor---Doctor was thoroughly cross-examined, who explained that the deceased then injured was
taken down in presence of the doctor duly verified by one of the eye-witnesses and endorsed by the doctor---Doctor
had explained that the deceased then injured was conscious and could talk---Defence was not contented with the
report of the doctor, it questioned the eye-witness on that particular aspect of the case where too the reply came that
the deceased then injured was conscious and oriented in time and space---Deceased in injured condition was then
referred to Hospital for further treatment where he died---Complainant survived for long seven days and his survival
for seven days alone had spoken of his ability to report---Record was silent to tell that what animosity the prosecution
had towards the accused, even the defence could not point out previous ill-will or grudge, which the witnesses and the
deceased were nourishing against the accused---Beside the deceased, two other eye-witnesses provided the ocular
account and they gave specific reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence---Although, the deceased and eye-
witnesses were inter related but they had no previous enmity or ill-will against the accused and they could not be
termed as interested witnesses in absence of any previous enmity---Both witnesses remained consistent on each and
every material point---Minor discrepancies were not helpful to the defence because the accused absconded and was
arrested after long time and with the passage of time such discrepancies were bound to occur---Soon after the
occurrence, the accused absconded---Circumstances established that the Trial Court had legally and properly
scrutinized and assessed the evidence without any misreading and non-reading and the conclusion arrived at by it did
not warrant any interference---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

NAWAB KHAN VS State
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Medical and ocular account---Corroboration---Scope---Accused
was charged with firing at complainant, as a result, he was hit and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital---Record
showed that occurrence had taken place in a day light, therefore, question of mistaken identity did not arise,
particularly, when the accused and the deceased being co-villagers were already known to each other---Medical
evidence furnished by two Medical Officers was in consonance with the dying declaration---No reason and
circumstance had been brought on record by the defence so as to remotely suggest substitution and false implication
of the accused in the case---Positive Serologist report with regard to last wearing bloodstained garments of the
deceased corroborated the dying declaration---Un-explained absconsion of the accused soon after the occurrence was
yet another circumstance which spoke about his guilty conscious---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in
circumstances.

NAWAB KHAN VS State
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Statement of alleged eye-witness---Chance witness---Un-natural
conduct of eye-witness---Scope---Accused was charged by the complainant/injured that he made firing at
complainant, as a result, he was hit and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital---Name of said alleged eye-witness
did not appear as eye-witness in the dying declaration---Said witness had deposed that accused made firing upon
deceased with pistol from the roof, with which he got hit and injured---Said witness deposed that he along with other
witness had witnessed the occurrence---Said witness pointed out, the spot to the Investigating Officer---Said witness,
in cross-examination, had stated that deceased was the son of his aunt---Somebody brought the cot and put the injured
on the cot and somebody might have conveyed the information for the vehicle that came there---Witness further stated
that the injured was taken by them upto the Adda but he did not accompany the deceased, then injured, to the hospital-
--Un-natural conduct of the witness i.e. not informing the family members of the deceased, not taking any interest in
arranging the cot or vehicle as well as not accompanying the deceased, then injured, to the hospital was sufficient to
make his presence at the spot doubtful---If the said witness was present at the spot, he being the maternal cousin of the
deceased, then injured, must have mentioned his name as an eye-witness or his alleged role---Even if the testimony of
alleged eye-witness as corroborative piece of evidence was ousted from consideration, even then,
the dying declaration of the deceased then injured being trustworthy and proved through cogent and confidence
inspiring evidence, would alone be sufficient for recording conviction---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in
circumstances.

NAWAB KHAN VS State
Scope---Accused was charged by the complainant/injured that accused made firing at him, as a result, he was hit and
succumbed to the injuries in the hospital---Oral altercation between deceased, his father and accused, a day prior to the
occurrence, had been advanced as a motive behind the occurrence---Prosecution had placed reliance on the
dying declaration of deceased-complainant, then injured, and ocular account furnished by three eye-witnesses---
dying declaration of the deceased, then injured had been recorded by official witness/Sub-Inspector of Police (SI) in
the shape of murasila, wherein it had been mentioned that the deceased, then injured, was in full senses at the time of
report---Said witness deposed that he recorded the dying declaration in presence of brother of deceased and Casualty
Medical Officer---dying declaration of the deceased, then injured, beside his thumb impression are the signatures of
scribe and verifier/brother of deceased--- Murasila also bore the endorsement/ certificate/attestation of the Casualty
Medical Officer---Witness/brother of deceased, then injured/verifier deposed that dying declaration of the deceased
was scribed by SI/witness in his and presence of Casualty Medical Officer in the hospital and at that time the
deceased, then injured was fully conscious---Casualty Medical Officer deposed that he examined the deceased, then
injured in casualty of hospital, who was fully conscious and oriented in time and space---Said three witnesses, who
were scribe, verifier and attester of the dying declaration had been subjected to taxing cross-examination by the
defence, but nothing favourable to defence could be extracted from them---Defence failed to shatter testimony of
witnesses to the effect that the deceased was not capable to make statement---Said witnesses were consistent with each
other on the point of consciousness, orientation in time and space as well as capability of the deceased then injured at
the time of making report---Nothing on record to show that the deceased was influenced by any one at the time of
report---No infirmity could be pointed out in the dying declaration--- Deceased, then injured had furnished true
account of the occurrence---Deceased had directly and singularly charged the accused/appellant for commission of the
offence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

IMTIAZ KHAN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Prosecution was bound to prove that in fact the deceased was well oriented in
time and space and that all legal precautions were taken when the scribe was giving his report.

IMTIAZ KHAN VS State
Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---
Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused committed murder of the
deceased, then injured/complainant---Prosecution had placed reliance on the dying declaration of deceased-
complainant, then injured---Record showed that the deceased in injured condition was taken to the hospital, where the
scribe reached at 10.08 a.m. and prepared his injury sheet---Said witness was thoroughly cross-examined, but when a
particular question was put to him that why he did not obtain a fitness certificate from the doctor regarding the
capability of the injured to speak, his reply was that he did not feel the necessity of the same---Record transpired that
at the time of report, the doctor was also present in the emergency room and that was one of the legal requirements
that a fitness certificate should have been requested and the doctor should have endorsed the murasila, but that legal
requirement was wilfully ignored---Said fact led to a conclusion that infact the injured was brought by the local people
and he was unable to talk and later on the eye-witness was procured and the report was taken down---Medical Officer
stated that tongue of the deceased then injured got detached from mandible bone---Mandible bone of the deceased
then injured was fractured and that situation directly affected the speech---When all said things were placed together,
it would come out that the deceased, then injured, was not in a position to talk and as such the so called
dying declaration could not be taken as a report made by the deceased.

ALTAF HUSSAIN VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 336-B, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of
1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, hurt by corrosive substance, shajjah-i-khafifah, damiyah,
common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Accused was alleged to
have thrown acid on the wife and daughters of complainant---Prosecution placed reliance on the statement of victim
who was then in her senses---Medical officer testified that victim's total burnt area was 41% (deep) involving left side
of the face neck, chest, abdomen, back, both arms and legs and that it was not possible for the victim to have seen the
assailant---High Court held that victim's statement was dubious and was accordingly discarded---Appeal against
conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Art. 46---Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found is relevant---
dying declaration---Scope---Question as to weight to be attached to the statement of a dead person depends on the
circumstances of each case---If the court comes to the conclusion that the dying person was truthful while making his
statement, it does not require further corroboration and conviction can be recorded on the basis thereof---If the court
finds it unreliable, it must be corroborated by other independent evidence.

Art. 46--- dying declaration--- Law relating to dying declaration, stated.

SHABBIR AHMAD VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-
damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light--
-Un-natural conduct of eye-witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused/appellants were on motorcycle
with a goat, complainant party while finding them suspicious stopped them but they made firing upon the complainant
party, due to which, complainant received injuries while his son died---Ocular account had been furnished by two eye-
witnesses including complainant/injured---Though the firearm injuries on the person of complainant indicated his
presence at the spot, however, same were not conclusive proof of what he deposed before the court was true---Record
showed that complainant was asleep in his house and woke up at the time of incident on dogs barking---Complainant
came out of the house and had seen a motorcycle coming from a distance of one square from eastern side which was
statedly boarded by two persons who had loaded stolen goat upon it---Prosecution witnesses had canvassed that both
the perpetrators were having chequered criminal track record of being involved in numerous criminal cases thus, when
signalled to stop both of them fired from their respective weapons, leading to the death of son of complainant and
injuries to complainant---Record transpired that neither during investigation any material was secured nor at trial any
evidence was led from which it might be alluded that on the eventful night, any goat was stolen from the vicinity---No
material was available on record to show that two accused/appellants were habitual thieves---Crime report showed
that veil was lifted from the identification of both the appellants through torchlight, however, the frailty of such claim
was probably felt by the witnesses as well and changed their stance during trial by saying that it was so done in the
light of bulb and torch---Existence of electricity bulb at the scene of occurrence was not found mentioned in the site
plan---Investigating Officer of the case, after his arrival in hospital, moved an application and raised a query from the
Medical Officer as to whether deceased then injured was in a condition to make statement or not---Perusal of
application revealed that it contained endorsement of Medical Officer which was to the effect that victim was
answering the questions---No clue was found from the recital of whole of prosecution evidence as to what was the tale
of occurrence put forth by victim before police---Keeping in view the fact that victim was in receipt of multiple
firearm injuries, his statement should have been recorded in terms of Chapt. 25, R. 21 of Police Rules, 1934 so as to
be used under Art. 46 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as dying declaration---Failure of prosecution to bring on record the
statement of victim as dying declaration showed that it was not in line with the story of crime mentioned in the FIR,
hence was withheld---Evidence of dying declaration could have provided ample strength to the case of prosecution

SHABBIR AHMAD VS State
Ss. 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-
damiyah, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light--
-Un-natural conduct of eye-witnesses---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused/appellants were on motorcycle
with a goat, complainant party while finding them suspicious stopped them but they made firing upon the complainant
party, due to which, complainant received injuries while his son died---Ocular account had been furnished by two eye-
witnesses including complainant/injured---Though the firearm injuries on the person of complainant indicated his
presence at the spot, however, same were not conclusive proof of what he deposed before the court was true---Record
showed that complainant was asleep in his house and woke up at the time of incident on dogs barking---Complainant
came out of the house and had seen a motorcycle coming from a distance of one square from eastern side which was
statedly boarded by two persons who had loaded stolen goat upon it---Prosecution witnesses had canvassed that both
the perpetrators were having chequered criminal track record of being involved in numerous criminal cases thus, when
signalled to stop both of them fired from their respective weapons, leading to the death of son of complainant and
injuries to complainant---Record transpired that neither during investigation any material was secured nor at trial any
evidence was led from which it might be alluded that on the eventful night, any goat was stolen from the vicinity---No
material was available on record to show that two accused/appellants were habitual thieves---Crime report showed
that veil was lifted from the identification of both the appellants through torchlight, however, the frailty of such claim
was probably felt by the witnesses as well and changed their stance during trial by saying that it was so done in the
light of bulb and torch---Existence of electricity bulb at the scene of occurrence was not found mentioned in the site
plan---Investigating Officer of the case, after his arrival in hospital, moved an application and raised a query from the
Medical Officer as to whether deceased then injured was in a condition to make statement or not---Perusal of
application revealed that it contained endorsement of Medical Officer which was to the effect that victim was
answering the questions---No clue was found from the recital of whole of prosecution evidence as to what was the tale
of occurrence put forth by victim before police---Keeping in view the fact that victim was in receipt of multiple
firearm injuries, his statement should have been recorded in terms of Chapt. 25, R. 21 of Police Rules, 1934 so as to
be used under Art. 46 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 as dying declaration---Failure of prosecution to bring on record the
statement of victim as dying declaration showed that it was not in line with the story of crime mentioned in the FIR,
hence was withheld---Evidence of dying declaration could have provided ample strength to the case of prosecution---
Said omission of prosecution was in terms of Art. 29(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Appeal was allowed and
accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

ABDUL GHAFOOR VS State
S. 302 (b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---
dying declaration---Voice recording---Evidence not put to accused---Accused was charged with murder of his own
wife on the basis of voice recording of deceased made by complainant at the time while she was dying---Police
official who stated to have recorded dying declaration was not present when the declaration was recorded---Trial
Court only believed dying declaration made by deceased and voice recorded by complainant but the same were not
put to him during examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Piece of evidence not put to accused in statement under S.342,
Cr.P.C. could not be relied upon against him---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court
and accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 MLD 686 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case
State VS AKASH KHAN alias KASHI
Ss. 302(b) & 392---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---
dying declaration, recording of---Petition for enhancement of sentence---Scope---Record showed that the statement of
deceased under S.161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 4.3.2015 and he died on 20.3.2015---Last
statement of the deceased could validly be treated as "dying declaration", if the court was satisfied that the deceased
was in a stable condition to make a coherent statement and the "dying declaration" was free from outside influence---
Defence during cross-examination of Medical Officer got it clarified that the deceased was in stable condition and was
also able to talk---Recoveries of incriminating articles i.e. blood stained stone, mobile, coat and an amount of Rs.
16000 had been recovered from the accused in presence of Magistrate and marginal witness, who fully supported the
case of prosecution during trial---Said recoveries were admissible under the law and could be treated as corroborative
piece of evidence---Record transpired that it was a case of circumstantial evidence, and no direct evidence was
available on record except a statement of the deceased recorded by the police under S.161, Cr.P.C.---In cases of
circumstantial evidence, the sentence of death was normally not awarded, unless and until some exceptional and
strong circumstances were available to do so---No justification was available to enhance the sentence of the accused,
in circumstances---Revision petition was dismissed being meritless.
GHULAM HUSSAIN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Statement made by an injured under expectation of death, who dies later on, can
be treated as dying declaration.
Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2508 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

SHAHZAD VS Rana QAMAR
Ss. 302(b), 324, 341, 337, 109, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint,
Shajjah, abetment, rioting, rioting armed with weapons, unlawful assembly---Reappraisal of evidence---Recovery of
car and weapon of offence from accused--- Reliance--- Scope--- In the present case, a car used in the occurrence was
recovered on the pointation of co-accused---Report of chemical examination showed that the recovered daggers were
found stained with blood, which indicated that the recovered weapons were used in the occurrence---Even otherwise,
deceased had not mentioned any specific injury towards co-accused but had nominated him in the dying declaration---
Weapon of offence was also recovered on the pointation of said co-accused---Record transpired that co-accused had
put the deceased in a car and threw him outside of his house, therefore, the Shariat Court had rightly awarded the
sentence to co-accused---In other co-accused persons were stated to be armed with daggers but during the
investigation, only sticks were recovered from them---Deceased had not attributed a specific role to said co-accused
persons in the dying declaration---Shariat Court had rightly set aside the conviction of the said co-accused persons on
the ground of benefit of doubt.

Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Oral dying declaration was a weak piece of evidence which must be
corroborated by independent circumstances.

Art. 46---dying declaration, recording of---Principle---Police Officer was not to be encouraged to record
dying declaration in a case for which he himself was Investigating Officer---If the Medical Officer was not available,
he could record the actual spoken words or gestures of the victim.

Ss. 302(b), 324, 341, 337, 109, 147, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint,
shajjah, abetment, rioting, rioting armed with weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Prosecution
case was that the accused party while armed with deadly weapons, assaulted on the father of complainant and injured
him--- Accused took the injured in a car and complainant and others also went towards the car---Accused put the
injured in another car and threw him near his home and fled away---Father of complainant was seriously injured, he
took him to hospital, where his dying declaration was recorded by the police wherefrom, he was further referred to
CMH, but he succumbed to the injuries---Motive for the incident was a dispute and litigation over a woman---
Prosecution had produced three eye-witnesses in the Trial Court---Said witnesses remained consistent on the material
propositions---However, some minor discrepancies were found which did not affect the whole prosecution's case---
Said witnesses had narrated the pre and post acts constituting the commission of offence spontaneously without any
inordinate delay---Prosecution's witnesses although remained consistent on the material propositions, however, the
minor discrepancies were found which constituted the mitigating circumstances---Said mitigating circumstances might
be considered for quantum of punishment---In the present case, the time of occurrence was stated as 8:00 p.m. and it
was an admitted fact that it was not a daylight occurrence---Statements of the prosecution's witnesses when read with
the site-plan then it would become abundantly clear that the distance shown in the site-sketch was such that no one
could exactly tell as to which of the accused/convicts inflicted the fatal blow and which of the blow caused the death
of the deceased---Distance shown in the site-plan was not as such close from where it could be ascertained that the
witnesses had clearly seen the occurrence---Convict-appellant was a principal accused in the present case and a
specific act of causing injuries with his dagger on the body of the victim was attributed to him---Record showed that
accused and his co-accused were armed with daggers and attacked upon the deceased with the intention to kill him
and committed murder of an innocent person---Motive behind the occurrence as stated was marriage between son of
deceased and sister of accused---Prosecution witnesses had fully supported the version of the prosecution in their
statements, whereas, on the other side nothing was brought on record---Motive, in the present case, had been proved
by the prosecution by producing reliable evidence---Circumstances established that the Shariat Court while
altering/converting the death sentence into life imprisonment and the life imprisonment into the rigorous
imprisonment of 14 years, in the light of the evidence and material brought on record, had committed no illegality---
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Art. 46---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---dying declaration must be free from any taint and independently
corroborated for making sole basis of conviction.

NAZEER KHAN VS State
S. 302---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration, reliance
on---Scope---Though the deceased was wounded critically, he was found by the medical officer to be well within the
capacity to share details of the incident---Narrative of the deceased was straightforward and confidence inspiring
besides being in harmony with the ocular account and medical evidence---Accused remained absent from law sans any
justification---Given accused's advance age, he had already been dealt with leniently in the matter of his sentence---
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

SOMAID VS ALI GOHAR alias GOHAR ZAMAN
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Case based on dying declaration of deceased
before police---Scribe of dying declaration not presented as witness---Fate of prosecution case hinged upon
the dying declaration of the deceased, purportedly made by him at the police station, which was converted into the
First Information Report (FIR)---According to the statement of one of the prosecution witnesses, he received the
deceased in an injured condition and recorded his statement, however in the next breath, he stated that the FIR was
recorded by a police witness on his dictation---Said police witness in his examination denied to have recorded the FIR,
thus question as to who recorded deceased's last words, was shrouded in mystery---Person who
recorded dying declaration was the most important witness to verify veracity thereof, but in the present case, such
person was conspicuously missing in the array of witnesses and thus dying declaration, could not be relied upon and it
would be grievously unsafe to maintain the conviction of accused---Benefit of the doubt was extended to the accused
and he was acquitted of the charge of murder---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

SOMAID VS ALI GOHAR alias GOHAR ZAMAN
Art. 46--- dying declaration, reliance upon--- Scope---Person recording dying declaration as the most important
witness---dying declaration, in legislative wisdom, was an exception to the general rule of direct evidence; it was
admitted to the detriment of an accused without opportunity of cross examination upon the declarant under the belief
that a person, face to face with God, would tell nothing but the whole truth---Notwithstanding such sanctimonious
hypothesis, before a conviction was based upon such a declaration, prosecution must demonstrate beyond shadow of
doubt that it comprised of the words of declarant alone without extraneous prompting or additions---Person who
recorded dying declaration was therefore the most important witness to verify veracity thereof.

ABDUL JABAR VS State
Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---
dying declaration---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused and co-accused, duly armed with firearms opened fire
at the complainant, as a result of which, complainant sustained injury on his chest and later on succumbed to the
injuries in the hospital---Motive of the occurrence was cited as dispute between the parties over trees---Prosecution
had placed reliance, on the dying declaration of deceased-complainant, then injured, and ocular account furnished by
two eye-witnesses---dying declaration did not inspire confidence for the reason that the Medical Officer who
examined the complainant in injured condition reported that injured was semi conscious, thereby indicating that he
was not fully conscious---Medical Officer did not report that the complainant was fully oriented in space and time and
was able to make a coherent statement, besides showing him in full senses, conscious and alert to surroundings---Note
of Investigating Officer on murasila to the effect that the statement of the injured was recorded as
dying declaration would naturally raise question that as to how at that stage he was sure that the injured was going to
die---Prosecution version was that the complainant was not that serious so as to raise such a serious concern about his
life---Relevant column in the medical report about names of relative or friend of the injured was left blank, while in
both the inquest and post-mortem reports, witness was shown as one of the two identifiers of the dead body beside
another witness---Two eye-witnesses and close relatives of the deceased were not shown present at the time of initial
medical examination of the deceased-complainant, when he was brought to the hospital---Said persons were not
present at the time of recording of dying declaration of the deceased-complainant---Said facts, would render the
dying declaration as doubtful.

SAID KARAM alias AJARR VS State
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Interested and chance witnesses---dying declaration, veracity of--
-Accused was convicted of committing Qatl-i-amd and sentenced to imprisonment for life while co-accused was
acquitted of charge on benefit of doubt by Trial Court---Accused assailed conviction and sentence on grounds that
dying declaration of complainant was not corroborated by other evidence---Validity---Both eye-witnesses were not
only closely related to complainant but highly interested, besides being chance witnesses---Testimony of chance as
well as interested witnesses could be taken into account provided same were confidence inspiring, steadfast and free
from any kind of contradiction---Both eye-witnesses had made considerable improvements in their testimony whereby
a different story was narrated---Material contradictions and improvements coupled with unnatural conduct of alleged
eye-witnesses was sufficient to take their testimony out of consideration---Both eye-witnesses were working for gain
at town other than occurrence had taken place therefore, they happened to be chance witnesses---Prosecution
witnesses were bound to have established reasons for their presence with supportive evidence---High Court set aside
conviction and sentence of accused as case of prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and order of Trial
Court was based on wrong appreciation of evidence---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

SAID KARAM alias AJARR VS State
dying declaration---Evidentiary value---dying declaration by itself is a weaker type of evidence which needs
corroboration through confidence inspiring evidence---Solely relying on dying declaration without other corroborative
evidence being in line and in support of said dying declaration would be against basic principles of jurisprudence of
criminal administration of justice.

KHYBER KHAN VS SHAHID ZAMAN
Art. 46--- dying declaration--- Ingredients---Prosecution had to establish through cogent evidence that the dying man
was in full senses, conscious, alert to the surroundings, fully oriented in time space and able to make a coherent
statement---Doctor present at the occasion would give a fitness certificate about the condition of a dying man.

Accused was charged for the murder of deceased---Record showed that scribe of FIR had failed to note down a single
word in the FIR that deceased then injured was conscious and perceiving the surroundings at the time of making
report---Deceased allegedly shifted to the hospital, was examined by Medical Officer but the alleged
dying declaration of the deceased, then injured, did not bear the endorsement of any Medical Officer to the effect that
he was conscious, well oriented in time and space and capable to make statement---Medical report of the deceased
then injured was also silent about the factum of his orientation in time and space and his capability to make statement-
--Neither the FIR nor the medical evidence nor other circumstances, much less strong, independent and reliable,
corroborated the alleged dying declaration---dying declaration, therefore, had been rightly not relied upon by the Trial
Court.

Art. 46---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---dying declaration by itself was not strong evidence being not tested
by way of cross examination---Only reason for accepting the same was the belief phenomenon of the court of law that
a person apprehending death, due to injuries caused to him, was ordinarily not expected to lie---To believe or
disbelieve a dying declaration, was thus left to the ordinary human consideration---Strong, independent and reliable
corroborative evidence was required for the sake of safe dispensation of justice---Relying blindly and without proper
scrutiny on a dying declaration, would be no less dangerous approach on the part of the court.

NASEER VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry--
-Abscondence---Effect---Allegation against the petitioner was that he along with his co-accused had fired at the
complainant with which he was injured and later succumbed to the injuries---Petitioner contended that co-accused had
been acquitted---Complainant (deceased) in his dying declaration had assigned same role of firing to both the accused
i.e the petitioner and acquitted co-accused---Seven empties of .30 bore pistol were recovered from the spot which as
per report of the Forensic Science Laboratory were fired from one and the same weapon---Acquitted co-accused was
convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge but he was acquitted of the charge in appeal by
High Court---Acquittal of co-accused charged with similar and identical role in the FIR as that of the petitioner, on the
same set of evidence---Case of accused/petitioner, in circumstances, was one of further inquiry, notwithstanding the
fact that petitioner remained absconder for a sufficient long time---Abscondence alone would not come in the way of
grant of bail---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2547 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

ZEESHAN alias SANI VS State
S. 302(c)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161 & 342---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-
amd---Examination of witnesses by police---Examination of accused---Plea of self-defence---Appreciation of
evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Witness, a close friend of deceased---Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Scope-
--Accused was charged for committing murder and injuring others---Trial Court had convicted the accused under S.
302(c), P.P.C. by holding that he had acted in exercise of his right of self-defence but exceeded the same---Father of
deceased, while reporting the crime, had stated that his son had gone with two persons on motorcycle and he after
their departure had followed them on another motorcycle with two persons---Complainant had allegedly seen the
accused stabbing his son---Prosecution relied on statement of deceased recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. at the time
when he was being shifted to the hospital---Doctor, in his statement before Trial Court, had explained that the
condition of injured was critical and had also not confirmed that certificate on request of Investigating Officer was
issued by him to the effect that injured was in a position to make statement before Investigating Officer---Facts
showed that attempt was made by prosecution to improve its case by introducing statement of deceased in the form of
dying declaration, which, in the circumstances, was un-reliable---Testimony of close friend of deceased was not
reliable---Accused had alleged that the deceased was used to tease him for committing sodomy---Accused had, out of
fear, started keeping a knife with him to save his honour---Accused, at the time of occurrence, was alone when
complainant party came and forced him---Accused had in that situation, in exercise of his self-defence, caused
injuries---Presence of complainant at the place of occurrence was highly doubtful as such his testimony was not worth
reliance---Complainant party was consisted of six persons and in their presence accused could not have left the place
of occurrence---Statements of witnesses clearly showed that they had concealed true facts of the case---Occurrence
had not taken place in the mode and manner stated by the witnesses---Prosecution evidence was found un-reliable---
Conviction could not be based upon statement of accused as it was to be believed or rejected in toto---Conviction
recorded by Trial Court under S. 302(c), P.P.C. was not warranted---Accused was acquitted from all the charges, in
circumstances.
Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 87 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case
ZAHID RIAZ (RAZA) VS State
Ss. 302(b), 394, 395, 306, 397 & 412---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt
in committing robbery, dacoity, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grevious hurt, qatl-i-amd not liable
to qisas, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of
doubt---dying declaration---Scope---Prosecution case was that accused persons committed the murder of taxi driver at
about 12:00 a.m. midnight on road---FIR was registered on the statement of the deceased---Police officer who arrived
at the crime scene stated that he had recorded the statement of deceased and had sent the endorsement to the police
station for registration of FIR---Police officer during cross-examination admitted that name, parentage and permanent
residence of the injured was not recorded in the endorsement because he was lying unconscious on the place of
occurrence; that the injured had remained on the place of occurrence for about 7 hours; that he had not mentioned the
condition of the injured in his endorsement or that he had found him capable to speak---Doctor had stated in his
examination-in-chief that patient was conscious but was in condition of shock---Doctor had not stated that the injured
was able to speak---Injuries on the person of deceased suggested that he was neither able to make statement nor had
made a statement before the police officer---dying declaration, like a statement of interested witness, being weak type
of evidence needed corroboration which was conspicuously missing in the present case---Alleged eye-witnesses had
not supported the statement of deceased---Criminal appeal to the extent of two accused persons was allowed and
judgment of Trial Court was set aside.

ZAHID RIAZ (RAZA) VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---dying declaration, being weak type of evidence, requires close scrutiny and
corroboration.

MEHBOOB ELLAHI VS State
Ss. 302(b), 337-A(i), 452 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd, causing shajjah-i-khafifah,
house trespass, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Scope---In the present case, victim
was allegedly shot on 20.4.2012 and his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded on 27.4.2012 and finally he
died on 15.5.2012---Said statement was being termed as "dying declaration"---Investigating Officer had admitted that
he had not sought permission of the Medico Legal Officer to record the statement and that the Medico Legal Officer
had given him oral permission to do so---Said witness had admitted his inability to produce any record or evidence to
support his assertion---Said statement was not signed by anybody (Doctor, Nurse, Magistrate, independent person),
which would help in showing that it was indeed recorded by the deceased---No witness was produced to establish that
Investigating Officer even visited the hospital to record the statement of deceased---Senior Medico Legal Officer had,
however, testified in court that he had never seen Investigating Officer in the hospital and that he could also not
confirm whether the Investigating Officer had visited the hospital---Statement of injured/deceased did not mention
time when the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of deceased---Admittedly, the Investigating Officer did not
make any effort to record the statement of deceased between 20.4.2012 and 27.4.2012---Said aspect created doubt in
the genuineness of the statement of deceased---Prosecution was unable to prove that the declaration was recorded by
deceased on his own and with free will, in circumstances.

MEHBOOB ELLAHI VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---dying declaration would receive sanctity only when it was shown that
the declaration was indeed given while the deceased had his faculties intact, and was without any external influence or
prompting.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 149 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ALI alias SUDHEER VS State
Ss. 302 (b), 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused persons committed robbery on show of force of
weapons from the husband of complainant and his friends and had caused severe injury upon head of her husband,
who succumbed to the injury---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses and
complainant---Record showed that complainant was not star witness of the incident---Testimony of complainant was
hearsay, therefore it could not be relied upon as trustworthy because complainant had not seen the incident at her own-
--Complainant heard about scenario from eyewitnesses---Both eyewitnesses could not act as a first informant to the
incident and had chosen wife of deceased to act as a complainant---No specific and isolated role had been attributed to
the accused-appellant of inflicting/causing hurt to deceased by the prosecution---Joint role had been attributed to
assailants as allegedly deceased received one bullet injury over his head---In the present case, deceased after receiving
injury was promptly taken to hospital for treatment where he was alive for about fifty two days---Investigating Officer
of the case did not record any statement which ought to have come from the mouth of injured/deceased to know the
descriptions and features of the assailant or the accused-appellant---If any statement had been recorded same could
have been treated in the sense of statement like dying declaration to know the exact features of the assailant and could
be matched with the photograph of accused-appellant---Investigating Officer did not invite independent witnesses as
mashir of arrest, which was violation of mandatory provision of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---Investigating Officer did not
produce daily station diary register of either arrival and the departure whether that was a piece meal investigation for
which no plausible explanation was offered---Record transpired that accused-appellant already in custody in some
other case was arrested in the present case and he pointed out the place of incident allegedly on 26.11.2013 when the
incident as alleged happened on 11.9.2013---Prosecution case being not free from doubt, appeal was allowed and
accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Paras.
9, 10, 12 & 15 of the judgment]
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 48 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

ATTA MOHAMMAD VS State
S. 497 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 &
7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault on public servant, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful
assembly, act of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Vicarious liability---Rule of consistency---Applicability-
-- dying declaration--- Scope--- Complainant (police official) while patrolling with other police official stopped a
suspicious vehicle---Petitioner, along with four accused, alighted from the vehicle and main accused made firing on
complainants companion (Police official) who sustained injuries and later died---Petitioner contended that his case fell
under further inquiry as bail had already been granted to one of the co-accused with almost similar attribution---
Petitioner was behind the bars for the last two years---Petitioner though had been nominated in the FIR but neither any
specific role nor any overt act had been attributed to him except that he, having a pistol, alighted from the vehicle
along with the main accused (who made straight fire on the deceased)---Soon after the alleged incident, injured police
official was taken to the hospital where SHO concerned, in the presence of medical executive recorded his
dying declaration, wherein he categorically stated that main accused had fired at him directly and even had not taken
the name of the petitioner---Question of vicarious liability of the petitioner with regard to his common intention for
committing alleged offence would be determined at the trial---Tentative assessment of record called the case of the
petitioner as one of further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.---Record revealed that another co-accused
had been admitted to bail; said co-accused was identified by the witnesses during the identification parade and
Kalashinkov was allegedly recovered from his possession---Case of the petitioner was at par with the said co-accused
therefore, principle of consistency also applied in the case of petitioner, which demanded equal treatment to the
petitioner---Bail was granted to the petitioner, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1142 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case
ALI SARWAR VS State
Ss. 302 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd,
common intention, possessing illicit arms---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Prosecution case was that
the accused and co-accused, duly armed with Kalashnikov and pistol .30-bore opened fires on the victims, who were
on motorbike, one died at the spot and other lost his life in the hospital---Record showed that there was no eye-witness
of the occurrence---One of the deceased who was driving the motorbike and managed his escape from the place of
occurrence in a very severe and critical condition had not made any statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Alleged
dying declaration was made in presence of close relative of the deceased and not before any independent/impartial
person either at civil hospital or at DHQ hospital, which raised a question of suspicion about its genuineness---Record
transpired that statement of deceased then injured was recorded by Police Constable and was signed by the witnesses--
-Said facts had been deposed by the prosecution witness, who was closely related to the deceased---Facts remained
that one of the deceased was real brother of complainant and their sister was in wedlock of SHO of the concerned
police station---In such situation, the chances of manipulation and fabrication could not be ruled out---Witnesses, who
were closely related and complainant who remained with the injured did not attempt to ask any impartial person to be
the witness of the dying declaration---Circumstances suggested that the dying declaration of the injured was not free
from outside influence---No ocular or any other solid evidence except dying declaration was available which being of
dubious nature was not worthy of any credence---Appeal was allowed in circumstances and accused were acquitted by
setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1142 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case
ALI SARWAR VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Valuable piece of evidence---Conviction---Scope---Statement of deceased person could
be treated as a dying declaration, which per se was good enough to maintain a conviction on a capital charge---For
sustaining a conviction on a capital charge, the prosecution had to prove that the dying man was in full senses,
conscious and alert and was able to make a coherent statement, which rang true, sound in substance and was free from
any tutoring from outside.
Citation Name: 2019 PLD 27 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case

Mst. KAUSAR BIBI VS State
Ss. 10 & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 371-A & 371-B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---
Hurt and Zina-bil-jabr, selling and buying person for purpose of prostitution---Power of court to acquit accused at any
stage---Application for acquittal was accepted---Allegation against accused-respondents was that they abducted the
daughter of complainant for the purpose of zina---After the death of victim, accused made an application under S.
265-K Cr.P.C., pleading no probability of their conviction due to death of victim, which after due notice was
accepted---Validity---Record showed that cursory statement of the victim was recorded on 11th August, 2008, though
occurrence took place in April, 2006---Appellant had alleged that cursory statement of the victim could be treated
as dying declaration as the victim made statement disclosing cause and circumstances of homicide---If deceased
himself/herself lodged FIR, that could be treated as dying declaration after his/her death---Cursory statement of the
victim could not be treated as dying declaration---In the present case, cursory statement of appellant was nothing but
hearsay---Appellant deposed what was told to her by other witnesses---Statements of two witnesses, seeing the victim
in the company of accused in white colour vehicle were not sufficient to cover the case within ambit of S. 11 of the
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979---Bald statement of appellant without disclosing source of
information about the sale of victim, name of the seller would not be sufficient to cover the case within the mischief of
Ss.371-A & 371-B, P.P.C.---Contention raised on behalf of appellant to decide the fate of the case after recording
evidence of appellant and the witnesses, in circumstances, was without force as there would be no likelihood of
conviction of the accused---Appeal being without force was dismissed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1246 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case

DUR MUHAMMAD VS State
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of
evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Accused was charged for the murder of complainant and his mother by firing--
-Evidence produced by the prosecution, was the dying declaration, evidence of widow of deceased, member of police
patrolling party, in whose presence, the alleged dying declaration of deceased was recorded and the statement of first
Investigating Officer---Scrutiny of statements of all the said witnesses suggested that they contradicted each other on
all material counts---Member of the patrolling party and Investigating Officer deposed that deceased, who at the
relevant time was in injured condition, had stated that they were injured by the accused by means of firearm when
they were sleeping in their house---Alleged dying declaration was silent with regard to motive of occurrence as to why
they were injured by the accused who was their uncle and was also residing in their house---Statements of said
witnesses as well as the alleged dying declaration were fully contradicted and negated by the widow of deceased---
Statement of widow of deceased reflected that the absconded sons of the accused made indiscriminate firing upon her
husband as well as her deceased mother-in-law, due to which they sustained injuries and subsequently died---During
her cross-examination, she had exonerated the accused from the charge---Sister of deceased lady stated that her sister
at the relevant time was in injured condition and disclosed that they had been injured by the brother of deceased---Said
witness had not supported the case of prosecution, thus she was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the
prosecution, but she remained firm in her deposition and exonerated the accused from the commission of crime---
Widow, along with her deceased husband and mother-in-law were allegedly the target of accused and other absconded
accused, but her husband and mother-in-law were hit and the widow of deceased was let free---Said fact did not
appeal to the logic that by killing two persons in presence of their close relatives, accused would not attempt to cause
any injury/kill the prosecution witnesses and would leave them for evidence to be hanged---Statement of accused was
recorded on oath under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., wherein, he had stated that alleged widow of deceased was residing with
the deceased illegitimately without Nikkah and that was the reason that deceased was murdered---Prosecution had
failed to produce any evidence establishing the motive behind the occurrence---Plea taken by the accused was more
plausible---Motive behind the occurrence was shrouded in mystery---Circumstances established that prosecution had
failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of
accused---Appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and
sentence recorded against him by the Trial Court.

ASKAR ABBAS VS State
Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---
Motive not proved---Effect---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused, duly armed with
firearms opened fire at the complainant party, as a result of which, complainant sustained firearm injury on his neck
and left back side, while his father succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital---Child aged about 10/11 years
also sustained injuries during the occurrence---Motive of the occurrence was cited as dispute over property---Neither
any document was placed on record of the case in support of the motive alleged by the injured complainant in
his dying declaration nor anything was brought with regard to dispute over Sabeel introduced later in the case by the
Investigating Officer---Statement of witness regarding dispute between the parties pertaining to the water tank situated
near the shop of the complainant remained unsubstantiated---Motive, as such, all along remained shrouded in mystery,
hence created space for doubting version of the prosecution---Motive was not proved in circumstances.

ASKAR ABBAS VS State
Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common
intention---Appreciation of evidence--- dying declaration---Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused,
duly armed with firearms opened fire at the complainant party, as a result of which, complainant sustained firearm
injury on his neck and left back side while his father succumbed to the injuries on his way to the hospital---Female
child aged about 10/11 years also sustained injuries during the occurrence---Motive of the occurrence was cited as
dispute over property---Ocular account was furnished by two eye-witnesses---Both the eye-witnesses mentioned in the
FIR escaped unhurt, and did not receive any injury in the alleged indiscriminate firing by three persons with their
deadly weapons---Injured was shifted to hospital in injured condition and his report was recorded there in the shape of
murasila---Said report, carried his thumb impression, which was verified by his uncle/witness, who signed the same---
Medical Officer recorded his endorsement on top of the murasila, without recording time under his endorsement or
name of the patient, his parentage and address---Medical Officer had not furnished a separate certificate regarding the
fact that the injured was able to talk coherently---Medical report showed that patient was conscious, without
mentioning about his faculty of speaking, and whether the injured complainant was well oriented at the time of
recording his report---Said glaring omissions on the part of the Medical Officer assumed importance in the face of
firearm injuries sustained by the complainant on the front of the throat over the trachea and at the upper end of the
sternum---Medical Officer had omitted to mention regarding about the airway, breathing, circulation of blood,
disability, blood pressure, pulse rate, colour of face, condition of the eye-balls, how the patient was reacting at that
time and the manner of his speech and the pitch of the voice specifically---Record transpired that injured complainant
had furnished the graphic details of the occurrence, including the information about his father who succumbed to the
injuries on his way to the hospital---Said facts tended to raise serious questions about the authenticity of the
dying declaration---Murasila was thumb impressed by the complainant, unlike rider of the murasila and uncle of the
deceased-complainant, who signed the report, without any evidence to the effect that the deceased-complainant was
illiterate and could not sign---Said fact indicated the report by uncle of the deceased-complainant and not as
dying declaration---Both the eye-witnesses did not receive any injury during the reported indiscriminate firing by
three persons, while they were also in the firing range and not only both the deceased had received firearm injuries but
a child also sustained firearm injuries---Admittedly, one of the eye-witnesses was brother of the deceased, therefore,
was an interested witness---Other witness had already been booked in a criminal case for committing cheating and
forgery, hence, the credibility and veracity of his statement was under serious doubt---Both the eye-witnesses had
claimed that their hands and clothes were stained with blood, when they accompanied the injured and deceased to the
hospital, but neither blood stains were noticed on their hands nor their blood stained clothes were taken into
possession by the Investigating Officer---Prosecution had failed to produce the injured child and abandoned her being
minor, thus withholding the best evidence, casted shadow of doubt on the case of prosecution---All the three accused
were shown armed with deadly weapons in the FIR without specification of the weapons---Accused armed with
Kalashnikov was introduced by way of improvement, without anything forthcoming on the record that both the
deceased and the injured child sustained injuries due to firing from the Kalashnikov shown in possession of the
accused---Neither the Kalashnikov had been recovered as weapon of offence from the accused, nor he had made any
confession in that respect so as to connect him with the commission of the offence---Circumstances established that
dying declaration of deceased then injured/complainant and presence of eye-witnesses were bereft of supporting
evidence, receiving corroboration from rest of the evidence adduced in the case by the prosecution---Accused was
acquitted in circumstances by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.
KHYAL MIR VS TAHIR HASSAN
S.302---Qatl-i-amd---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---dying declaration was a weak type of evidence because
it was not tested by cross-examination---dying declaration could be made a base for conviction provided that same
was corroborated by strong independent circumstantial evidence, otherwise, no credence could be attached to the
same.

KHYAL MIR VS TAHIR HASSAN
S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that, deceased, the then
injured, was busy in cutting grass in the fields, that, accused fired at him with pistol, with which he was hit and got
injured---Injured was taken to the hospital where he lodged the report to the police and was referred to other hospital
for further treatment but he could not survive and succumbed to injuries---Record showed that there was no eye-
witness to the occurrence and the one, who was the complainant, died subsequent to lodging the report---Prosecution
had relied upon the FIR by treating same as a dying declaration---Record showed that site plan of the case had been
prepared by the Investigating Officer on his own, as neither the deceased accompanied the Investigating Officer to the
spot nor anyone else pointed out the crime spot to him---Record was silent as to how the Investigating Officer reached
the spot and prepared the site plan citing therein various points about presence of the deceased and the crime empties--
-Neither any cut grass was recovered nor any sickle was found from the crime spot---Investigating Officer had not
cited any place wherefrom the grass was cut by the deceased or was in the process of cutting, hence the site plan did
not support the dying declaration so made by the deceased---Medical evidence showed that deceased had died after
five days of the occurrence---Sole injury sustained by the deceased was on posterior side of his left thigh, which was a
non-vital part of human body---Medical Officer had given certificate about consciousness of the injured when the
deceased, the then injured was conscious and oriented at the time of lodging report, there was no need of certificate by
the doctor about his consciousness---Said aspect of the case showed some overactiveness on the part of Investigating
Officer and it appeared that when the deceased passed away after five days, then the Investigating Officer obtained the
certificate regarding consciousness of the deceased---Alleged dying declaration got no corroboration from
independent circumstantial aspects of the case, therefore, it could not be made basis for conviction of the accused---
No postmortem report of the deceased was available, in absence of which it could not be ascertained with certainty
that what was the cause of death of deceased---Admittedly, death certificate of the deceased was available and cause
of death had been given as multi-organ failure, which was a very vague term and was not reliable---Cause of death
when not clearly known, then the statement of the injured could hardly be considered as a dying declaration---
Prosecution had not produced the treatment chart of the deceased on the basis of which the death certificate was
issued, death certificate, in circumstances, had no legal worth---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed
to bring home guilt to the accused through any reliable and confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal was allowed and
accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

HAQ NAWAZ VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Admissibility---Not necessary for the admissibility of dying declaration that the
deceased at the time of making the report should have been under expectancy of death.

HAQ NAWAZ VS State
2001 SCMR 1474, 2010 SCMR 55, PLD 1992 SC 211,
Scope---Prosecution case was that the deceased then injured, lodged the crime report that accused-appellant armed
with .303-bore rifle, fired at him and he got hit on his left thigh---Record showed that the deceased then injured did
not make the report under expectation of death, but narrated the circumstances which resulted in his death---Deceased
was not expecting death because the injury was on his left thigh, which was normally called non-vital part of the
body---Medical Officer, however, stated the cause of death to be the injury on main vessels leading to extensive blood
loss and shock---Signatures of deceased then injured and the Police Officer were available on the FIR, lodged by the
injured himself immediately after the incident, eliminated the possibility of any influence, therefore, the same could be
termed as dying declaration and conviction could be based on the same.

HAQ NAWAZ VS State
1992 SCMR 320, 1999 SCMR 2432, 2001 SCMR 1474, 2010 SCMR 55, PLD 1992 SC 211,
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, reduction in--- Medical evidence--- Mitigating
circumstances---Prosecution case was that complainant in injured condition lodged a report that accused-appellant
while armed with .303-bore rifle fired at him, which hit on his left thigh---Complainant had stated that there was no
motive for the occurrence and he did not know as to why the accused-appellant fired at him---Complainant/injured
succumbed to the injury---Ocular account was furnished by a witness and medical evidence---Record showed that
statement of witness of ocular account was not worth reliance and was ruled out of consideration---
dying declaration of the deceased, then injured, was available on record which was sufficient for conviction of
accused-appellant---Medical Officer deposed that deceased, then injured, was examined on 17.6.2009 at about 7.00
p.m. and on the same day at about 9.00 a.m. autopsy on the dead body of deceased was conducted---Said statement of
Medical Officer about timing of examination and autopsy of deceased appeared to be slip of tongue because it was not
possible that autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted before his death---Medical Officer clarified
during cross-examination that autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on 18.6.2015---Postmortem
report showed the date as 18.6.2015 at its end---Said contradiction could not be termed as material contradiction, fatal
to the prosecution case, but could be termed as mitigating circumstance---Deceased, then injured, reported that there
was no motive for the occurrence and he did not know as to why the accused-appellant fired at him---Deceased, then
injured, received a single fire-shot and that too on non-vital part of his body---Deceased then injured, was at the mercy
of the accused-appellant but he did not repeat the fire---Circumstances and overall facts of the case established that
there was no motive for the occurrence and no fire was repeated by the accused, which constituted mitigating
circumstances in the case---Appeal was partially allowed in circumstances and sentence of death was converted to
imprisonment for life.
Citation Name: 2018 MLD 1585 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

SALIM KHAN VS AZAM KHAN
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of
evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Prosecution case was that the deceased, then injured, reported to police that
accused party on seeing him started firing at him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries (and succumbed to the
injuries)---Motive attributed was previous blood-feud---Record showed that report of the deceased was recorded in the
emergency room of the hospital by Police Officer, but the Medico-Legal Report was silent regarding the
consciousness or otherwise of the deceased, then injured, at that point of time---No separate certificate or endorsement
on the report of the deceased was available to fortify the stance of the prosecution that at the relevant time, the
deceased, then injured, was in a position to make coherent statement---Medical Officer had stated in his cross-
examination that the injured was conscious, well oriented and was talking to him but stated that he neither mentioned
that fact in the report nor had any reason to explain as to why he had not done so at the time of his Medico-Legal
examination---Documentary evidence in the shape of Medico-Legal Report was available on record, wherein it
figured nowhere regarding the condition of the deceased, then injured---Attempt of Medical Officer was just an oral
assertion, introduced during the course of cross-examination, would not overcome the documentary evidence prepared
at the very initial stage of the case---Prosecution evidence showed that at the time of recording of the statement of the
deceased, then injured, private persons were also present there---dying declaration was recorded in the presence of
relatives or private persons, it could not be ruled out that the names of the accused were put in the mouth of the
deceased, then injured---Medical evidence showed that all the entry wounds sustained by deceased, then injured, were
of the one and the same dimension, which appeared that it was job of one person; however, in the present case, three
persons were nominated by names and the fourth unknown accused was charged---No empty was recovered from the
place of occurrence---No specific weapon had been attributed to the accused---Circumstances established that the
prosecution case was pregnant with inherent defects and material contradictions and as such, prosecution had failed to
prove its case against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt, benefit of which, would resolve in favour of
accused---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded against
them by the Trial Court.

IFTIKHAR VS State
S.302---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, possessing unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of
evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for the murder of brother of the complainant by firing---Evidence
of the prosecution witnesses transpired that none of the witnesses had seen the occurrence---Said witnesses were
examined under S. 164, Cr.P.C. just to bring home the charges and to implicate accused---Witnesses were closely
related with the deceased but none of them had given any clue as to why the accused killed the deceased---Prosecution
witness had deposed that the deceased then injured in his presence had deposed that the accused was the one who fired
upon him---Statement of said witness was not worth consideration for the purpose of dying declaration---Other
prosecution witness had deposed that he came to know that the deceased then injured had received some fire shot and
was taken to the hospital for treatment---Said witness rushed there and asked the victim as to who had fired upon him-
--Deceased informed him that it was the accused who had fired upon him and in his presence the statement with
regard to implication of the accused was given by the victim to the police---Said witness being close relative was
attracted to the hospital on the second day of the happening---Statement of witness that the victim had recorded
statement before the police implicating the accused was without any further corroboration to that effect---Statement of
said witness, in circumstances, would lose its efficacy---Record showed that the report was lodged in the hospital
before the police by the deceased then injured, when his brother and mother in the company of his wife had gone to
the hospital, but even then they did not disclose the name of real culprit to be the accused---Statements of the
prosecution witnesses revealed that they were unaware about the information being given by the deceased regarding
implication of the accused---Said statements had been purposely manoeuvred to name the accused to cover the gaps
adversely affecting the prosecution case---Deceased then injured remained alive from the time he was hit by bullet and
remained in senses, he could name the accused, but because of maintaining secrecy and the motive behind the
occurrence, he failed to name the accused either before the Medical Officer or before the police or before anyone
especially his brother who remained with him all the time in the hospital---Complainant, real brother of the deceased,
had admitted in his cross-examination that accused was known by the deceased---Deceased remained alive for a
number of days but he did not charge the accused either in his statement while making report even latter, which aspect
would lead to the inference of high doubts---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal
was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the
Trial Court.

BASHEER VS ABID
Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---
dying declaration---Probative value---Scope---Prosecution case was that a person in injured condition reported the
matter to the police that he was going to Bazaar on his motorcycle and when reached the place of occurrence, accused-
appellant and co-accused, who already had waylaid at the spot, started firing at him, resulting into injuries---Motive
for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over womenfolk---Initially, the FIR was registered under S.324/34 Penal
Code, 1860, however, when the complainant then injured succumbed to the injuries in the hospital, section of law was
altered from 324 to 302 Penal Code, 1860---Time had not been mentioned, in the Murasila as to when the deceased
met the incident but scribe of the Murasila noted down the timing as 8.15 a.m.---Injured complainant was brought to
the hospital at 8.45 a.m.---Injury sheet showed that injured was referred to the doctor at 10.40 a.m., five minutes prior
to his arrival with the police official---Medical Officer stated that he examined the injured at 10.40 a.m.---Both the
time and mode and manner of the report if considered as dying declaration would come under a heavy shadow of
doubt, on which, reliance could not be placed in the absence of strong corroboration, which was lacking---No
certificate was obtained regarding the capability of the injured complainant as to whether he was conscious or if
conscious, was he in full senses or for that matter in proper frame of mind to make such statement---Complainant had
reported that the occurrence was witnessed by other persons on the spot but no one came forward to lend support to
such assertion of the complainant---Circumstances established that a dying declaration replete with several legal
infirmities lost its probative value---Accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence
recorded by the Trial Court.

BASHEER VS ABID
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Where the entire prosecution case hinged upon the dying declaration which
entailed in its wake capital punishment for the accused, such statement of deceased then injured would require very
close and serious scrutiny.

RAZA KHAN VS RAZEEM
1984 SCMR 1092, 2007 SCMR 1825, PLD 2006 SC 255,
Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-K---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-
amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---dying declaration---Allegation
against accused was that he, along with co-accused, made firing upon the complainant of FIR, who received injuries---
Injured was shifted to the hospital in injured condition; police reached there and recorded his statement---Injured,
however, succumbed to the injuries---FIR was lodged on the statement of the deceased then injured---Statement of a
deceased person in the form of FIR could be treated as a dying declaration under Art. 46 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 for
sustaining conviction---Prosecution, in such a situation, was required to establish that the dying man was in full
senses, conscious and alert to surroundings, was fully oriented in space and time and was able to make a coherent
statement; the dying declaration rung true and the doctor present at the occasion would give a fitness certificate about
the condition of the dying man---In the present case, the doctor had not given any certificate that the deceased then
injured was conscious and could talk---Report had been recorded by Police Officer but he had not obtained any
certificate from the doctor to the effect that the deceased then injured was able to talk or otherwise---Alleged
statement/dying declaration had been made in the presence of his brother, which was not worthy of credence---
Circumstances established that prosecution version about recording dying declaration of deceased stood falsified,
appeal was dismissed accordingly.

IJAZ AHMED VS State
PLD 2006 SC 255,
Ss. 302, 404, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, dishonest misappropriation of
property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful
assembly---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Such statement was to be recorded either by a
Magistrate or in the presence of a Gazetted Police Officer and in absence thereof, in front of two or more unconcerned
reliable witnesses---However, if neither of the said persons were available, only then such a statement could be
recorded in the presence of two or more Police Officers---Record revealed that Investigating Officer made no effort to
procure the attendance of any unconnected witness, though it could easily be done from the hospital---Deceased, then
injured was brought to the hospital at about 7.50 p.m., where he died at 10.45 p.m.---During said period, victim was
provided extensive medical treatment---Complainant remained present in the hospital but he uttered not a single word
regarding dying declaration of deceased---Eyewitness deposed that deceased died ten minutes after making statement
to the police---Investigating Officer deposed that he recorded the statement of deceased after about twenty minutes of
his arrival in the hospital---Statements of said witnesses regarding time of recording the statement of deceased were in
conflict with each other---Circumstances and facts of the case showed that since the statement of deceased was made
just before the death of the deceased, hence, there was every possibility that victim was not in full control of all his
faculties giving rise to a possibility of the statement not being lucid, which created doubt regarding the legal worth of
dying declaration---Record showed that the thumb impression of the deceased were marked/affixed twice at the same
place, which reflected that at the time of making statement, deceased had lost control over his senses---Said feature of
the case raised doubt about the veracity and correctness of the dying declaration as well as opinion of the Medical
Officer, according to which the deceased was fit to make statement at the relevant time---Inquest report, which was
prepared subsequent to the death of deceased found no mention regarding dying declaration of the deceased---Record
was silent as to why the statement of the deceased was not recorded in the presence of the Medical Officer as it did not
bear his signatures---dying declaration of the deceased, in circumstances, had no effect on the case of prosecution.

IJAZ AHMED VS State
Ss. 302, 404, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the
time of his death, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of
doubt---Prosecution case was that the accused persons duly armed with deadly weapons, emerged on the spot and
started firing at his son, which hit on his knee and back---Victim was shifted to hospital and after getting first aid,
injured got recorded his dying declaration---Victim succumbed to the injuries---Motive behind the occurrence was
stated to be previous litigation---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by the witnesses including
complainant---Record revealed that the occurrence took place in front of a Dera---None of the eye-witnesses was
resident of crime scene and their houses were situated at a distance of 10-15 acres from the said Dera---First
Information Report as well as the examination of eyewitnesses revealed that they tried to justify their presence at the
crime scene by deposing that they were sitting there in connection with a personal matter---Detail of personal matter
was neither given in the crime report nor in the examination-in-chief of the witnesses---Said witnesses deposed during
cross-examination that they were getting prepared sickles from a ironsmith---Neither the owner of the Dera nor
ironsmith appeared in the witness box in order to provide some credibility to the claim of both the eye-witnesses
regarding their presence at the crime scene---Presence of said witnesses at the crime scene could be an outcome of a
sheer coincidence, which rendered them as chance witnesses---If a witness was found to be a chance witness, his
testimony was not to be discarded out-rightly if supported and corroborated from other evidence, which was lacking in
the present case---Record transpired that the testimony of eye-witnesses, who not only were inimical to the accused
persons but were found to be chance witnesses, got no support or corroboration from any other material---
Circumstances established that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of
doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted in
circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 41 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

RIZWAN ASHIQ VS State
1998 SCMR 2669,
Art. 46(1)---dying declaration---Scope---Basis of dying declaration was that truth sat upon lips of dying man as he
anticipated to meet his Maker---Principles.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 13 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

ZAINAB BIBI VS MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Ss. 302 & 34----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417---Qatl-i-amd; common intention---Appeal against
acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Last-seen evidence---Benefit of doubt---Circumstantial evidence---
Complainant alleged in private complaint that the accused, employers, had murdered her son, the employee, over
some money matter---Trial Court acquitted the accused---Prosecution's ocular account and medical evidence
manifested material inconsistencies and deficiencies---Prosecution witnesses were related inter se---Prosecution
witnesses had not stated the exact date of alleged occurrence---Complainant had failed to explain as to why she had
failed to record the dying declaration of the deceased to the police when he remained admitted in the hospital for a
long time---Medical witness had deposed that the history of the head injury, drowsiness and anorexia was three days
old---Postmortem examination of the deceased had also not been conducted to determine the cause of his death, which
was fatal to the case of prosecution---Prosecution evidence on the dimension of last-seen was neither confidence
inspiring nor reliable---Last-seen evidence due to its inherent defects was fundamentally weak and the same failed to
furnish any ground for conviction in absence of any independent corroborative evidence---Deceased had neither been
last-seen in the company of the accused nor at the place of occurrence shortly before the time he was presumed to
have met with death---Prosecution witness, Capital Police Officer, had categorically deposed that according to the
police inquiry, the deceased had died due to road accident---Impugned verdict of acquittal of accused was neither
perverse nor the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed
accordingly.

MUHAMMAD NABEEL SHAH VS State
S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860 ), Ss. 302, 337-J & 34---Qatl-i-amd, hurt by poison, common intention---Pre-arrest
bail, confirmation of---Delay in registration of FIR---Effect---Refusal to allow post-mortem of deceased lady by her
family--- Deceased lady was second wife of one of the petitioners---Complainant/ father of deceased lady earlier
stated that his daughter took poisonous thing/medicine which caused her death but later nominated not only the
husband of deceased but his first wife and her family also---Petitioners contended that the deceased remained alive for
two days in hospital, but her statement was not recorded and that complainant himself took dead body of his daughter
without allowing doctors to conduct her post-mortem---Record revealed that the complainant lodged the FIR after 15
days of the incident---Prosecution witnesses which included sister and brother of the deceased had alleged in their
statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. that the deceased made oral dying declaration before them---Strained
relations existed between family of deceased and the family of first wife as both were related inter se, yet the family of
deceased kept quiet for considerably long period---Record also showed that the complainant and his family members
did not allow the doctors to conduct post-mortem of the deceased, which called for further inquiry into guilt of the
petitioners---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners was confirmed in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE VS State
S. 302---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---
Reliance--Scope---Record showed that all the three eye-witnesses stated that deceased lady was in her senses when
she was sent to hospital in injured condition---dying declaration of the deceased as witnessed by the doctor was that
the accused killed the deceased by firing---No particular format for dying declaration was noticed; main requirement
being that it was made without influence---dying declaration, in the present case, was made before the doctor, the
Investigating Officer, and the person who was dictating the dying declaration and no other person was said to be
around the deceased lady at the time when she made it---Circumstances established that legal requirements had been
fulfilled for recording dying declaration which was admissible and could be relied upon.

ALI GUL ABRO VS State
Ss. 302, 504 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.46---Qatl-i-amd, intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of peace, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Scope---First Information Report
was considered as dying declaration by the Trial Court against the accused-appellants and they were sentenced for life
imprisonment---Validity---dying declaration was to be made by the deceased with the clarity of mind that he was
going to die---In the present case, FIR was written by the police in a routine manner, the deceased was in his senses
and he had signed the FIR himself after verifying its contents---Said FIR did not fulfill the requirements of a
"dying declaration"--- Record showed that deceased himself had gone to the police station and lodged FIR, deceased
had received injury on non-vital part of the body, as such he was not under the expectation of death at the time of
lodging FIR---FIR, in circumstances, could not be considered as dying declaration.

SAJJAD ALI VS State
S. 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161 & 164---Qanun-e-Shahdat (10 of 1984), Art. 38---Qatl-i-amd-
--Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Prosecution case was that accused-appellant committed murder of his
step-mother on the allegation of being "kari"---Accused confessed his guilt before the Police Officer, and lodged the
FIR being complainant of the case---Record showed that accused-appellant was convicted on the basis of his extra-
judicial confession and statement of victim recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. wherein, she stated that it was the accused-
appellant who had shot her---Validity---Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided that no confession made
to a Police Officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence---Prosecution witnesses had deposed
that accused-appellant made confession that he shot the victim because she was "kari"---Record showed that there was
no allegation that deceased had illicit affair with any body---Allegation was without any evidence---Such fact
corroded the evidentiary value of the testimony of the complainant and the police---Record showed that statement of
victim was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. on 6.10.2012, victim was admittedly discharged on the same day and did
not die till 2.11.2012---Statement of victim; which was recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. could not be treated
as dying declaration in circumstances---Victim had made application before the Judicial Magistrate to record her
statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. on 22.10.2012, which was declined on the ground that the Investigating Officer had
applied for the same---Accused-appellant had alleged that victim wanted to make a judicial statement that the police
had wrongly recorded her statement under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Said version could not be determined because of death of
victim, however, it created doubt in the prosecution case---No recovery was made by the Investigating Officer---None
of the relatives of the deceased were cited as witness in the entire process---Father of the accused-appellant was
produced as witness by the prosecution but he exonerated the accused-appellant throughout the process---Evidence of
the father of the accused-appellant contrary to the prosecution claim in itself created doubt in the prosecution case---
Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Accused-appellant
was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 1115 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case
MUHAMMAD SAEED VS State
S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Ocular account
supported by medical evidence---Accused was charged for the murder of sister of complainant through Churri blows--
-No motive had been mentioned by the complainant against the accused in the FIR---Ocular account was furnished by
complainant and the mother of the deceased---Facts remained that there was inconsistency between the FIR and
statement of complainant---Complaint showed that the mother and sister of deceased came out after the complainant,
but as per statement of mother of deceased, complainant emerged on the scene after the mother---Said inconsistency
showed that the complainant had improved his statement from FIR, whereas he had only seen the accused in the street
from his back, therefore, his statement to the extent of being wajtakar could be given consideration at that stage---
Ocular account given by the mother of the deceased had gone un-rebutted---Accused had himself asked a specific
question regarding the alleged occurrence from the mother of the deceased and in response to said question she
narrated the actual event---Record showed that accused was nominated at the very first instance, even the FIR was
promptly lodged---Statements of complainant and mother of the deceased proved to be consistent in that regard that
deceased stated that accused had stabbed her---Statements of said witnesses were further confirmed through
independent---Evidence of taxi driver, who had brought the injured lady in his taxi to the hospital---Circumstances
and facts of the case had proved that the dying declaration of deceased with regards to details of injury, name and
description of the accused had not been denied rather the entire cumulative facts demonstrated that the last words of
deceased were based upon truth and nothing was concealed thereon---Statement of mother of deceased, who had seen
the actual occurrence with her own eyes, corroborated the occurrence---Testimony of Medical Officer, who at first
instance medically examined the deceased, showed that the time of death was 5.15 a.m. which occurred in Operation
Theater during her treatment---Said facts had proved that deceased was brought to the hospital alive and it could
safely be concluded that, approximately two hours of time was passed from incident till death, therefore, it could
firmly be concluded that deceased had stated some facts about the alleged occurrence to her mother and brother in
presence of witness/taxi driver, who were natural witnesses of the alleged crime---Prosecution, had not been able to
prove motive and recovery of the crime weapon, which were mitigating circumstances for reduction of sentence---
Sentence was reduced from death to imprisonment for life in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 344 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

RIYASAT HUSSAIN VS MUHAMMAD SABIR
2012 YLR 325,
Art. 46---Recording of dying declaration by Investigating Officer---Admissibility---Principles---Police Officer who
was investigating the case was not to be encouraged to record dying declaration; however, when the Medical Officer
was not available, he could record the actual spoken words or gestures of the victim.

Ss. 302, 337, 458, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah, house breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or
wrongful restraint, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Deceased,
then injured, lodged a complaint that he along with his wife were sleeping at the roof of his house that suddenly three
unknown persons came there; one of them being of small height, was armed with .12-bore rifle, fired a straight shot,
due to which, he sustained severe injury and fell down and later succumbed to injuries---Motive behind the occurrence
was land dispute---Ocular account was furnished by the widow of the deceased complainant who was sole eyewitness
of the occurrence---Record showed that widow of deceased got recorded her statement before police on 26.4.2001 and
7.11.2001 and before court, on 11.5.2005---Statement of the widow of deceased recorded before the police showed
that she neither nominated any person nor deposed that accused persons had masked their faces with "chadars"---Said
witness, however, subsequently made improvements in her statement recorded before police by deposing that three
accused persons, who had masked their faces, were pulling her husband and during scuffle, two "chadars" of accused
persons were dropped at the spot---Said witness (widow) made further improvement by deposing that accused fired at
her husband and she had seen him while firing the shot---dying declaration of the deceased complainant showed that
out of three unknown accused persons, one was armed with .12-bore rifle, whereas record showed that police
recovered two rifles from two accused persons---Record further showed that a double edged dagger was recovered
from co-accused, whereas record of Trial Court showed that a common chhurri used for domestic work was recovered
from the parcel---Investigating Officer had recorded the dying declaration of the victim and the Medical Officer only
signed it, thus, such type of dying declaration could not be believed---Said circumstances created doubt in the
prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused persons---Appeal against acquittal was
dismissed in circumstances.

Ss. 302, 337, 458, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, Shajjah, house breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or
wrongful restraint, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Recovery of
crime weapons and other article from accused---Scope---Small butt of rifle, a dagger and a "chadar" were recovered
from the place of occurrence---Two rifles from two accused persons were recovered---Said recoveries were doubtful
as deceased had indicated in dying declaration about one rifle, whereas police recovered two rifles and one "chadar"---
Widow of the deceased had deposed that two "chadars" of accused persons were dropped at the spot---Record
revealed that recovery witnesses were closely related to deceased and despite availability of independent witnesses,
police had not associated them with the recovery proceedings---Such discrepancies and contradictions created
reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused persons.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 191 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

IFTIKHAR KHAN alias KHARI VS The STATE
Ss. 302(b) & 341---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-i-amd, wrongful restraint, possessing
unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Eye-witnesses had fully supported that accused had committed the
crime---Recovery of the weapon of offence also supported the prosecution version---Medical report, postmortem
report and the reports of Chemical Examiner and firearm expert, had further strengthened the case of prosecution---
Site-plan prepared by Patwari and statements of Investigating Officers corroborated the prosecution version---Manner,
time and place of occurrence, were established by the prosecution against the accused beyond shadow of any
reasonable doubt---All the eye-witnesses were unanimous, consistent and firm in their deposition that it was the
accused who came in the way of deceased and challenged him by saying that the life of the deceased was going to be
taken away and then he fired with lethal weapon which hit on the vital part of the body of the deceased---No material
contradiction was noticed in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses---Statements of defence witnesses were not
helpful to accused as they had stated that only accused had fired one shot upon the deceased---Eye-witnesses account
being independent, natural and confidence inspiring, was enough to establish the charge against accused---Murder of
the deceased in broad day light and fatal injuries were specifically attributed to single accused---Prosecution witnesses
were put to lengthy searching cross-examination but nothing favourable to defence came out from them---Prosecution
was not bound to examine all the witnesses---Forensic Science Laboratory report was positive with regard to rifle
recovered at the instance of accused---dying declaration had been proved by the prosecution through confidence
inspiring evidence---Motive had successfully been proved---Prosecution, in circumstances, had proved the guilt
against accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court were
maintained and confirmed, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJN 191 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case
IFTIKHAR KHAN alias KHARI VS The STATE
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---dying declaration, was admissible piece of evidence and last word of a dying
person would enjoy the presumption of truth---No specific mode for recording a dying declaration had been
prescribed---Only requirement was that it must indicate the cause and the circumstances which resulted in the death.
State VS FAQIR ALAM
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Benefit of
doubt---Prosecution case was that accused along with his co-accused committed murder of the deceased---
Complainant disclosed in FIR the circumstances in which the occurrence of murder of deceased took place---Case of
prosecution was based on the alleged dying declaration of the deceased and statements of two prosecution witnesses,
who had directly charged the accused and co-accused for committing the murder of deceased---Medical Officer and
two private persons were witnesses in whose presence the deceased gave his statement, termed as dying declaration---
Prosecution did not examine Medical Officer and one private person as witnesses---Prosecution opted to record the
statement of one witness to establish the dying declaration as correct---Said witness had charged only accused for the
occurrence but the dying declaration showed that accused and his co-accused were responsible for opening fire on the
deceased---Dying declaration showed that deceased had taken name of one prosecution witness, who accompanied
him, while prosecution cited two witnesses as eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Such kind of contradictions in the
statement of witness and in the dying declaration were material contradictions and on the basis of such material
contradictions, it could be said that prosecution had failed to establish the dying declaration---Appeal against acquittal
was dismissed in circumstances.

ABDUL MANAN VS State
Admissibility--Term , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 ,
Art. 46---"dying declaration"---Admissibility---When a man, who had recorded his statement prior to his death shed
light upon the cause of his death, such statement would be admissible in evidence.

Dying Declaration--TERM , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 ,
Art. 46---dying declaration---Evidentiary value---dying declaration was worthy of credence for recording conviction,
when there was neither any evidence on record nor even a suggestion that dying complainant submitted his report
after consultation or receiving hints from others.

Art. 46--- dying declaration--- Scope--- If the contents of dying declaration indicated that what was alleged, was
probably true and no attempt had been made to exaggerate the incident or falsely implicated someone, it would be
considered as "dying declaration"---Such dying declaration would be termed as strong piece of evidence.

1981 SCMR 61, 2001 SCMR 1474, 2015 PCr.LJ 1389, PLD 1977 SC 612, PLD 1992 SC 211, PLD 2006 SC 255,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Dying Declaration--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--147 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--
46 ,
Ss.302, 147, 148 & 149---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly
weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration---Scope---Accused-appellants along with
absconding accused persons were alleged to have launched a murderous assault upon complainant, resultantly, he
became seriously injured and after reaching the hospital, he submitted a report for registration of FIR---
Injured/complainant, however, succumbed to the injuries---Trial Court recorded conviction against the accused-
appellant on the basis of report submitted by deceased considering the same as dying declaration---Accused-appellants
had alleged that the report submitted by the complainant was wrongly considered as dying declaration as the said
report was neither written on prescribed pro forma nor requisite certificate of the doctor was appended therewith---
Validity---Admittedly, dying declaration was not written on the prescribed form and same did not carry the certificate
from the doctor nor in the beginning it contained the routine observation by the police---Such omissions would not
detract the evidentiary value of the dying declaration if the same was made without delay; that deceased could speak;
that there was no doubt about identity of the accused; that there was no motive for which the deceased while nearing
his death would lie and there was no element of prompting---In the present case, record transpired that soon after the
occurrence, the complainant/injured submitted report promptly without any consultation and deliberation---Record did
not show that said report was rendered at the instance of anyone else or the deceased had submitted the report after
being tutored by someone---Submission of report and contents therein were sufficiently corroborated by the
statements of prosecution witnesses---Injuries mentioned in the report were corroborated by the medical evidence
furnished by the Medical Officer, as such, said report was rightly treated as "dying declaration"---Appeal against
conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

SANAULLAH VS State
S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account did not support medical evidence-
--Prosecution case was that the accused fired with his pistol on the deceased while he was going by car along with two
witnesses---Deceased was shifted to hospital in injured condition---Police reached there, got recorded his statement---
Injured, however, succumbed to the injuries---FIR was lodged on the statement of the deceased---Police
official/witness stated that he along with other official witness reached hospital after receiving information about the
occurrence---dying declaration of deceased was recorded, which contained his thumb impression---Other official
witness narrated the same story---Evidence of said police officials was in contradiction to the medical evidence---
Medical Officer had deposed during cross examination that deceased was brought to hospital within the period of 20
to 25 minutes, after occurrence, in injured condition and he was fully unconscious---Circumstances suggested that
prosecution version about recording dying declaration of deceased stood falsified---Conflict between the statement of
police officials and medical evidence established that dying declaration of the deceased had falsely been prepared by
the police at the behest of complainant party---Said circumstances cast doubt on the prosecution case, benefit of which
would resolve in favour of accused---Conviction and sentences recorded against accused by Trial Court were set aside
in circumstances.

ZUHRAB GUL VS State
2005 PCr.LJ 01, PLD 1952 Lah. 388, PLD 1991 Quetta 39, PLD 2001 SC 384,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F ,
Ss.302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, rioting armed with
deadly weapon, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Allegation against the accused was that the accused
along with absconding co-accused armed with firearms entered the house of complainant and opened fire at
complainant party, as a result of which five persons died at the spot and two were injured---One injured, later on,
succumbed to the injuries---Prosecution case besides the ocular account of injured witnesses, rested on
the dying declaration of deceased then injured, in the shape of marasila, which was not only endorsed by Medical
Officer/ prosecution witness but had also furnished a certificate on its margin about the consciousness and capability
of the deceased then injured to make a statement---Medical officer had furnished statement only to the extent of
conducting autopsy on the dead bodies of the two deceased but he was not examined to the extent of deceased then
injured and injured witness---Medico legal reports of deceased then injured, injured witness and endorsement and
certificate over the dying declaration, borne the signature of Medical Officer/witness---Said witness (Medical Officer)
could not be examined due to some misunderstanding---On the one hand, six persons were done to death and one
person had sustained injuries, on the other hand, five persons had been directly charged for the commission of
offence---In case of non-examination of the Medical Officer/witness to the extent of initial examination of the
deceased (then injured) and verifying the factum of his report in his presence would not only amount to deprive the
prosecution from important evidence but necessary for the administration of justice---High Court remanded the case to
the Trial Court, after setting aside conviction and sentences of the accused, for re-examining of Medical
Officer/witness with regard to Medico Legal Reports of injured and deceased then injured.

ZAKRIYA VS State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Bail--- Further inquiry---
Complainant (deceased) in an injured condition gave statement that he was accompanied by his brother when three
accused persons came and started firing at them---One assailant was named in FIR---Motive was telephonic threat of
dire consequences by named accused---Trial Court dismissed bail application---dying declaration of complainant was
supported by medical evidence, statement of his brother and other corroborative evidence---Nothing was brought in
rebuttal to disbelieve dying declaration---Petitioner (accused) was named in FIR who failed to make out case of
further inquiry into his guilt---Bail was declined to him---Case of co-accused, however, was based on different
footings, he was named in statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. but not in FIR---Non-holding of identification parade in his
case, casted shadow of doubt---Bail was granted to co-accused in circumstances.

ZAKRIYA VS State
Art. 46--- dying declaration---Evidentiary value---Scope.
Citation Name: 2017 MLD 987 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

ABID AZIZ VS WAQAS
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---'dying declaration', though was an important piece of evidence, but it was
equally true that to accord the status of 'dying declaration' to a report of the deceased-complainant, it was an essential
pre-requisite to prove that at the time of making the report, deceased-complainant was fully conscious and capable of
understanding the nature of his report and that there was no external prompting at the time of lodging the report by the
deceased.

SOHAIL ASLAM VS State
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Dying Declaration--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--334 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--337-F ,
Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 334, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, itlaf-i-udw,
abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
dying declaration--Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with co-accused made firing on the deceased
and prosecution witnesses---Deceased was shifted to hospital in injured condition; police reached there and got
recorded his statement---Injured, however, succumbed to the injuries---FIR was lodged on the statement of deceased,
which was considered as dying declaration---Investigating Officer stated that on receiving information of the
occurrence he visited the hospital where the deceased (then injured) was admitted---dying declaration of deceased was
recorded without obtaining opinion of the doctor about his condition---Record showed that Investigating Officer had
not observed legal formalities at the time of recording statement of deceased (then injured)---Investigating officer did
not turn out other relatives from the ward before recording statement of deceased (then injured)---Investigating Officer
admitted that he did not seek permission from the Medical Officer for recording statement of deceased as to his fitness
to make statement---dying declaration was not verified by any member of the hospital---Record showed that deceased
remained in hospital for about fifteen days, during which there was sufficient time for Investigating Officer to record
the dying declaration in presence of Magistrate, which was not done---Statements of witnesses were not in line with
the contents of dying declaration---Circumstances suggested that the deceased while in injured condition was tutored
during recording of statement and he had made the statement with consultation and deliberation---Said circumstances
cast doubt on the prosecution case, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Accused was acquitted by
setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by Trial Court in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD HANIF alias FOUJI VS State
1995 SCMR 1627, 1995 SCMR 1735, 1999 SCMR 697, 2008 SCMR 6, 2009 PCr.LJ 1022, 2009 SCMR 230, 2010
SCMR 374, 2011 SCMR 1190, 2012 SCMR 327, 2012 SCMR 440, 2015 SCMR 137, 2015 SCMR 142,
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Both prosecution
witnesses, were not the residents of the area where occurrence had taken place, but were residents of other places,
which were situated at a distance of 14/15 and 16/17 Kilometers, respectively---Reason advanced by said witnesses
for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time, was not plausible and was quite un-natural---
Statements of said witnesses, were not believable and appealable to the mind, being improbable and unnatural---Same
could not be relied upon to maintain the conviction of accused---Said witnesses, contradicted each other and made
dishonest improvements in the previous statements which had created the doubt about the veracity of their statements
and made them unreliable---Three co-accused, who had been assigned specific roles were finally acquitted---Evidence
which had been disbelieved qua the acquitted co-accused, could not be believed against accused, until and unless there
was strong independent corroboration against him, which was lacking in the present case---FIR was registered after
about 2 hours of the occurrence; and post mortem examination was conducted with the delay of more than twenty four
hours---No explanation for such delay was furnished---Presence of witnesses at the scene of occurrence at the relevant
time was doubtful and crime report was recorded after due deliberation and consultation---Nothing was on record,
except oral narration of witnesses to strengthen the prosecution story regarding alleged dying declaration made by the
deceased---Alleged declaration, which had already been disbelieved qua the three acquitted co-accused persons, could
not be relied upon---Blood-stained chhuri, allegedly was recovered at the instance of accused after twenty-three days
of occurrence---Evidence of the recovery of said chhuri and report of Chemical Examiner, and that of Serologist, in
that respect, was not reliable---Even otherwise, evidence of recovery of chhuri, was merely a corroborative piece of
evidence, and relevant only, when the direct evidence i.e. ocular account would inspire confidence, which was not the
situation in the present case---Nothing was on record to suggest that any civil or criminal litigation was pending
between the parties---Prosecution could not prove motive part of the occurrence against accused---Prosecution having
failed to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt, conviction and sentence recorded by
the Trial Court against accused, were set aside---Accused was acquitted from the charge levelled against him by
extending him the benefit of doubt, and he was released, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2017 MLD 1458 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD ASIF VS State
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common
intention---Bail, refusal of---Reasonable grounds---Deceased (dying declarant) being a neighbour unambiguously
pointed accused as assailant---Occurrence took place in a broad-daylight---Place of injuries as alleged by deceased
was confirmed by the Medical evidence---Argument that dying declaration was not attested by Medical Officer and
was liable to be excluded from consideration was of no force---Various pieces of prosecution evidence cumulatively
constituted "reasonable grounds" within the contemplation of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail was refused.

ASGHAR ALI VS State
2015 YLR 47,
S. 489-F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.133---Dishonestly
issuing a cheque---Forfeiture of cross-examination---Petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. against the order of forefeiture---
After submission of report under S.173, Cr.P.C., case could not proceed for one reason or the other---Various
adjournments were allowed to the discredit of the complainant---Trial Magistrate succeeded in recording statements of
prosecution witnesses, but cross-examination was deferred on the request of the defence---On various dates the
witnesses were in attendance, but due to non-availability of the defence counsel, case was adjourned with last
opportunity to the petitioner/accused to arrange cross-examination---On various dates of adjournments, witnesses
were again in attendance but accused failed to arrange for cross-examination---Accused, was once again cautioned
with the last opportunity to arrange his representation---Lastly, when despite availability of witnesses, the
petitioner/accused failed to arrange cross-examination through his counsel, his right of cross-examination was
forfeited---Validity---Right of cross-examination, was a most valuable right which would enable an accused
confronting a criminal charge to vindicate his position---No statement, except a dying declaration, could be read in
evidence to the detriment of a person, likely to be adversely affected by such statement, unless cross-examined---
Right of hearing and right of cross-examination, were equally important to ensure a fair trial---Accused was to be
afforded a meaningful and reasonable opportunity to canvass his point of view; as well as impeach credibility of the
witnesses appearing against him through cross-examination which would not mean that accused would avail those
opportunities according to his whims and choice; or he could hold in abeyance the process of law to a point of time of
his selection---Legislature in its wisdom had provided a period, no less or no later than seven days---For a valid cause
that period could be extended, but within reasonable limit---Incessant adjournments and importunate cross-
examinations, were the factors behind social apathy towards civic responsibility to become a witness in aid of justice
despite a divine command---Call of strike by the members of the Bar could not be taken as a cover for failure to cross-
examine a witness, who was in attendance---Petitioner could not press into service lawyers's strike to indemnify his
absence or failure to arrange representation on the witnesses, who were in attendance---Petition under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

FARHAT ABBAS SHAH VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---dying declaration, could sustain capital charge successfully in case it was found
true and in line with other piece of evidence---Law did not require any particular quantum of evidence to derive home
the charge, a solitary piece of evidence, free from taint and within the ambit of probability, could sustain the charge---
Under Art.46(1) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 dying declaration could be admitted to help the court to arrive at correct
finding of fact---No specific forum was provided before whom such declaration was required to be made; it would
depend on the circumstances of each case as to how a departing person divulge details of the incident.

AHSAN BANGASH alias JUNAID VS State
1985 MLD 697, 1992 SCMR 320, 2001 SCMR 1474, 2010 SCMR 247, 2011 SCMR 725, PLD 2006 SC 263,
S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 49---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence--- Sentence, reduction
in---dying declaration---Scope---Accused was charged for causing death of his wife by setting her on fire---Trial
Court relied upon dying declaration of deceased and testimony of minor daughter of accused and sentenced him to
death--- Validity---No material irregularity was noticed in recording dying declaration of deceased by investigating
officer in presence of prosecution witnesses when doctor found her fit for recording her statement---
dying declaration made by deceased was voluntary without any probability of prompting as to cause of her death and
the same was recorded in writing by investigating officer who had no enmity with accused---High Court declined to
discard dying declaration as made by deceased duly supported and corroborated by evidence of prosecution witnesses
and the doctor---Daughter of accused had witnessed the incident and stated that her father quarrelled with her mother
and sprinkled petrol on her mother who was standing near stove and fire caught her mother and such evidence was
straightforward and trustworthy---Accused immediately after the incident repented and realized wrong act and tried to
extinguish the fire and in the result he sustained burn wounds--- Actual and immediate cause of occurrence was not
clarified by complainant during trial--- High Court converted sentence of death into imprisonment for life as such
were mitigating circumstances--- Appeal was allowed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ATEEQ VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ
Civil Procedure Code --Order VII of C.P.C. Plaint--11 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--11 , Rejection of plaint--Term
, Specific Relief Act 1877--39 , Specific Relief Act 1877--42 , Specific Relief Act 1877--54 ,
Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11 & O.VII, R.11---Rejection of plaint---Plea of res judicata---
Scope---Non-issuance of notice---Plaintiffs filed suit for cancellation of documents, declaration and injunction but
without any application filed by defendant, Trial Court rejected plaint on the plea of res judicata---Validity---If
defendant was of the view that suit was barred under principle of res judicata, he should have filed a proper
application for rejection of plaint or dismissal of suit on such ground---Such application could not be decided without
notice to plaintiffs---In absence of any such application, plaint could not have been rejected suo motu by Trial Court---
Opportunity of hearing should have been provided to plaintiffs and not condemned unheared---Course adopted by
Trial Court for disposing of suit on the basis of a purported statement was alien to Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and
therefore, was not legal---Order passed by Trial Court was non-speaking order which had made it void---By not
remedying error committed by Trial Court, Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction failed in
exercising jurisdiction vested in it by law---High Court set aside order passed by Trial Court---Constitutional petition
was allowed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2017 YLRN 311 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

SHAHZAIB VS State
Ss. 497 & 498-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-J, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-
amd, causing hurt by means of a poison, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Bail, confirmation
of---Complainant alleged that accused person forcibly administered agricultural pesticide to his daughter with
intention of murder---Parties were disputed over matrimonial affairs---Accused to whom allegation of administering
poisonous substance was assigned was fugitive from law---Two FIRs were lodged by both parties with similar
allegations of administering poisonous substance to different ladies, however FIR lodged by accused party was
disposed in 'C'-Class---Neither the bottle of poisonous substance nor any other incriminating articles were recovered--
-No dying declaration of deceased was recorded by Medical Officer while she expired in hospital during treatment---
No marks of violence were available at the neck of deceased---Demeanor of complainant reflected that he was not
interested for early disposal of case---Accused neither misused the concession of bail nor frustrated trial by using
delaying tactics---Apprehension of accused being arrested by police with ulterior motives as well as humiliation
existed---Ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed---Order accordingly.
NAVEED AKHTAR alias JANI VS State
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-H , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-L , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--7 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 21-H & 21-L---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of
terrorism---Case was that of no eye-witness and the whole prosecution case was based on the
alleged dying declaration of the deceased made before the complainant/ father of the deceased and Investigating
Officer---Prosecution had failed to connect the involvement of accused in commission of offence---Whole material
collected by the prosecution, was in support of its case, including that of the confessional statement of accused
recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which had clearly shown that murder of the deceased was
committed by co-accused, whose name was not mentioned in column No.1 without any reason---Self-destructive
statements of the complainant and prosecution witness/ Investigating Officer, could not be safely relied in the peculiar
circumstances of the case---Autopsy report, coupled with the statement of the doctor, who conducted post mortem of
the deceased, had confirmed that nature of injuries was such in which it was highly improbable for the person to talk--
-Prosecution having failed to prove the charges levelled against accused, impugned judgment of the Trial Court was
set aside and accused was directed to be released, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD AMEER VS RIYAT KHAN
PLD 1970 SC 13,
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 ,
Art. 46---dying declaration, reliance on---Scope---dying declaration was an exception to the hearsay rule and, thus, the
same was to be scrutinized with due care and caution.

MUHAMMAD AMEER VS RIYAT KHAN
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 , Qatl-e-amd--Term , Reappraisal of evidence--
TERM ,
S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---dying declaration of
deceased, reliance on---Doubts with regard to the recording and truthfulness of the dying declaration---FIR lodged two
days after the purported dying declaration---Doctor in-charge of deceased not supporting the factum of recording of
dying declaration---Contradictory statements as to who brought the deceased to the hospital---dying declaration could
not be relied upon in such circumstances---Accused was acquitted accordingly.
KHAWAS RASOOL VS State
1999 PCr.LJ 707, 2008 PCr.LJ 1655, 2012 YLR 636, 2013 MLD 1879, 2014 PCr.LJ 715, 2015 MLD 690, PLD 2012
Pesh. 1,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Entire prosecution case, hinged on
the dying declaration of the deceased complainant, (then injured)---Despite presence of prosecution witness at the time
of lodging of report by the deceased, (then injured), he did not sign/thumb impress the report as rider---No report of
the Medical Officer was obtained on the Murasila showing the deceased complainant (then injured) fully conscious
and capable of making the report, in order to lend credence to the report as a dying declaration---In such a
situation, dying declaration, was to be accepted for the purpose of holding accused guilty of the offence, with great
care and caution, especially when maker was not subjected to cross-examination---Story narrated in the FIR, did not
appeal to common sense---FIR showed the deceased standing near the door outside the house, but the site plan,
mentioned the place of occurrence inside the house, wherefrom blood stained earth, and empty shell of .30 bore were
recovered and positive reports were obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory, as well as Firearms Expert,
thereby confirming the scene of the occurrence, shown in the site-plan, as against the one, recorded in the FIR by the
deceased (then injured)---Statements of eye-witnesses, which were not worthy of credence, had created serious doubt
in the case of the prosecution---No one from the nearby houses, shown in the site-plan, was attributed to the spot,
despite noise, grappling between accused and the deceased---Other two co-accused, were acquitted of the charge by
the Trial Court and appeal against said acquittal also stood dismissed---Motive for the offence, remained shrouded in
mystery---In view of discrepancies and glaring contradictions in the case of the prosecution against accused, it was not
safe to rely on the dying declaration, in absence of credible corroborative ocular and circumstantial evidence---
Conviction and sentence of accused, recorded vide judgment of the Trial Court, were set aside---Accused was
acquitted of the charge levelled against him, and was set at liberty, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD KARIM VS ABD-U-SATTAR
Art. 46---dying declaration---Determination of genuineness and reliability Test---Main test or points for determination
of genuineness of dying declaration were that whether the maker had the physical capacity to make the
dying declaration; that whether the maker had opportunity to recognize the assailant; that whether there were chances
for mistake on the part of dying man in identifying and naming the assailant; that whether it was free from prompting
from any outside quarter; that whether the witness, who heard the deceased making his statement, heard him correctly
and that whether their evidence could be relied upon---In order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration had to
be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement, had been made in the absence of
accused, who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination---Once the court would
come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the
identification of the assailant of the victim, there was no question of further corroboration.

MUHAMMAD KARIM VS ABD-U-SATTAR
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984--46 , Qatl-e-amd--Term ,
S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
dying declaration, sanctity of---Trial Court had recorded the conviction and sentence of accused on the sole ground of
dying declaration of deceased, then injured---Sanctity was attached to the dying declaration because, a dying man, was
not expected to tell a lie, but being weak kind of evidence, it required close scrutiny and corroboration---No amount of
doubt existed about the capability of the deceased, then injured, to talk and being conscious---Only disturbing
question was that whether the deceased, then injured, was in a position to identify the assailant at the time of incident-
--Report of the deceased, then injured, revealed that he did not utter a single word about any source of light, whether
electric or natural (moon light) in which he identified the accused, as the incident took place at odd hours of the night-
--Site plan, nowhere showed that around the crime venue there was any source of light or was taken into possession by
Investigating Officer during spot inspection---Deceased, then injured, was shown in the site plan, at a distance of 15
paces, which was a considerable distance, and in absence of any source of light, identification of the assailant from
such a distance, was next to impossible---Not appealing to mind that an assailant who selected the odd hours of the
night for offence, would disclose his identity before his target---Trial Court had not furnished any reason, much less
plausible, in support of point of identification, rather had given much stress on the physical condition of the deceased,
then injured, that he was capable to talk as per statement of the Doctor---No piece of evidence was available to
remove serious reservations about identification of accused by the deceased, then injured, in the dark hours of the
night---Though the deceased, then injured, was in a position to talk, but not in a position to identify the assailant---If,
identification of the assailant was excluded from the consideration, the whole edifice of the prosecution case would
crumble to the ground---No other direct evidence, was available with the prosecution---Mere recovery of blood from
the spot, blood-stained garments of the deceased, coupled with the report of serologist and autopsy report, being
corroborative piece of evidence, would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused---Identification of accused,
being highly doubtful, cast serious doubts in the prosecution case, benefit of which would be extended to accused not
as a matter of grace or concession, but as a matter of right---Trial Court had not evaluated the dying declaration of the
deceased, then injured, in its true perspective, court had reached to an erroneous conclusion by holding accused guilty
of the offence---Allowing appeal, sentence of accused recorded and awarded by the Trial Court, vide impugned
judgment, were set aside and accused was acquitted of the charges levelled against him, and he was set at liberty, in
circumstances.

RIAZ VS Syed FAWAD ALI SHAH
1983 PCr.LJ 2075, 1989 PCr.LJ 1,
Dying Declaration--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984--46 ,
Art. 46---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 34---dying declaration---Scope---Statement of the deceased in the
form of an FIR, could be treated as dying declaration, which itself was good enough under Art.46 of Qanun-e-
Shahadat, 1984 for sustaining conviction on a capital charge---For believing dying declaration, and convicting a
person on its basis, essential conditions which must be established by the prosecution were, that dying man was in full
senses, conscious and alert to the surrounding, that was fully oriented in space and time and was able to make a
coherent speech; that the dying declaration, otherwise rang true and was sound in substance to be relied upon; that it
was free from prompting given by the outside quarters and that Doctor present at the relevant time would give a
fitness certificate about the condition of the dying man---dying declaration, itself was not strong evidence being not
tested by way of cross-examination---Only reason for accepting dying declaration, was the belief phenomenon of the
court of law that a person apprehending death due to injury caused to him, was ordinarily, not expected to speak a
falsehood---To believe or disbelieve a dying declaration, was left to the ordinary human judgment---Courts always
insisted upon strong, independent and reliable corroborative evidence for the sake of dispensation of justice---Relying
blindly and without proper scrutiny on such a statement, would be no less dangerous approach on the part of the courts
of law.

SIRAJ VS State
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term ,
S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Incident took place during the night, but
neither deceased who was then injured, had stated about any source of light nor Investigating Officer had recovered
any electric bulb during spot inspection, nor was shown in the site-plan---Deceased, then injured, had stated that he
was fired at from the back---Identification of accused in a dark night that too from the back, would create a doubt
about identification of the assailant by the deceased then injured---Benefit of the same would go in favour of accused--
-Brother of the deceased, who appeared as prosecution witness, had contradicted the story of the deceased, then
injured---Said contradictory versions had created doubts in the prosecution case---Doctor who examined the deceased
then injured, had only mentioned that the patient was conscious---Mere mentioning of word 'conscious', would not be
sufficient to prove that injured was able to talk---Statement of the deceased, then injured, could not be termed as
a dying declaration, because, neither the same had been recorded by the Magistrate, nor by the Medical Officer, or in
presence of two or more reliable and independent witnesses---Medical Officer had not furnished any certificate
regarding capability of the deceased, then injured, to give statement---Status of the statement of the deceased then
injured, would not be more than a statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Dying declaration, or a statement of a person
without the test of cross-examination, was a weak kind of evidence and its credibility depended upon the authenticity
of the record and the circumstances under which statement was recorded---Said statement did not find support and
corroboration from the medical evidence---Recovered empties of .30 bore pistol, had not been sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory for analysis---Deceased then injured, had not stated about description of the weapon of offence in
his report---Accused had not confessed his guilt before competent court of law, nor weapon of offence had been
recovered from his direct or indirect possession---Mere recovery of the empties in absence of direct and substantive
evidence, would not be sufficient to prove the guilt of accused---Blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, his
blood stained garments and positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory, could only advance the prosecution's case
to the extent that deceased was done to death on that particular place/spot, but would not be sufficient to prove that
murder had been committed by accused---Such, being corroborative pieces of evidence, by itself would not be
sufficient for conviction of accused in the absence of substantive evidence---Alleged motive also remained unproved--
-Abscondence of accused alone, could not be a substitute of real evidence---Mere abscondence of accused, would not
be enough to sustain his conviction---Prosecution evidence was doubtful and benefit of such doubt, was enough for
acquittal of accused---Prosecution having failed to bring home the guilt of accused through cogent and confidence
inspiring beyond shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence recorded against accused by the Trial Court were set
aside, and he was acquitted and released, in circumstances.

SIRAJ VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---For finding out truth or falsity of dying declaration, case was generally
considered in all its physical environments and circumstances; it was necessary to find out, as to how far the evidence,
or its different parts fit in with the circumstances, and possibility that could safely be deduced in a particular case---In
order to pass test of reliability, dying declaration had to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, as such statements were
made in the absence of an accused, who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-
examination---In examining the intrinsic worth of dying declaration, the inherent consistency, genuineness and truth
of the statements in the context of surrounding circumstances; the fact that the deceased was not tortured or motivated
by hate or other mercenary motives to give untrue account or substitute or falsely implicate persons in the crime, its
credibility according to normal human standards and the absence of any inherent infirmity or weakness therein all had
to be apprised---On appraisal of surrounding circumstances i.e. that the deceased was in a fit condition to make the
statement, would also had to be carefully examined---dying declaration, whenever possible, preferably be recorded by
a Magistrate and if Magistrate was not available, or if there was no time to call the Magistrate due to deteriorating
condition of the victim, it could be any body e.g. public servant, like Medical Officer or any other person---In case of
absence of the Magistrate and Public Officer, such statement should be recorded in presence of two or more reliable
disinterested witnesses to the case---If availability of two independent witnesses was not possible, it should be
recorded in presence of two or more Police Officials---Conviction could be based on dying declaration alone,
provided it was true and free from prompting from outside---For accepting such statement, without considering the
surrounding circumstances of the case, would not be safe administration of justice to convict accused merely on the
basis of dying declaration---dying declaration like the statement of an interested witness, required close scrutiny, and
was not to be believed merely for the reason that dying person was not expected to tell a lie.

GULZAR AHMAD VS State
2015 SCMR 10,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--336-B ,
Ss. 302(b) & 336-B---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(a)---Qatl-i-amd, killing by burning, act of terrorism---
Appreciation of evidence---Incident had taken place exactly on the date which was mentioned in the FIR---Delay of
four days in registration of FIR which was plausibly explained, was immaterial in circumstances of the case---Incident
was a daylight occurrence, wherein accused was named in the FIR by the deceased herself, in
her dying declaration made before the Civil Judge---Specific role of pouring Kerosene oil on the deceased after tiding
her hands and putting her on fire, attributed to accused, was duly borne out from the Medico-Legal Certificate of the
deceased and post-mortem examination---Story mentioned in the FIR was quite natural---Both witnesses, had
correctly explained strained relations of the spouse, and the manner as well as mode of taking place of the occurrence-
--Said witnesses had remained constant on each and every material point, despite having a lengthy cross-examination
by the defence---Said witnesses were dependable witnesses and their evidence extended adequate confidence to the
court---Complainant being real brother of the deceased, it was not expected from close relative to falsely involve
accused, who was his brother-in-law in the case---Case was not that of mistaken identity of accused or his false
implication---Medical evidence was absolutely in line with the ocular account, which had provided full support to the
same---Minor discrepancies, could crop up with the passage of time, slip of tongue, and same were not material
enough to be considered---Recovery effected in the case, provided full corroboration to the ocular account---Motive
set out by the prosecution, which had fully been proved, had provided sufficient support to the ocular account---
Accused, who was desperate person, had acted in a merciless and ruthless way; and indulged into a hard-hearted
occurrence, which took life of his wife, for which a sense of panic provided in the locality---Normal penalty of murder
was death, and accused did not deserve any leniency---Prosecution having proved its case against accused without any
shadow of doubt, conviction and sentence passed against accused, were upheld and maintained---Sentence of death,
was confirmed, in circumstances.

MEHDI HASSAN VS State
Art. 46---dying declaration---Scope---Statement of deceased (then injured) in the form of dying declaration---No
certificate from the doctor regarding fitness of deceased having been obtained prior to recording his statement,
statement of injured was not reliable.

PAIRA VS State
1978 SCMR 303,
Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 , Qatl-e-amd-
-Term ,
S. 302(b)--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46(1)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---dying declaration,
indivisibility of---Medical jurisprudence---Deceased died in hospital due to 90-98% burns on his body and four
persons faced trial---Three accused were convicted by Trial Court on the basis of dying declaration of deceased and
were sentenced to imprisonment for life whereas one was acquitted of the charge---Validity---Veracity of
dying declaration was indivisible, as statement of maker of dying sans sanctity of oath as well as opportunity of cross-
examination---It would be extremely unsafe to allow division of dying declaration so as to partially convict a person
from the array of accused implicated therein---Such division would also be antithetical to the solemnity attached with
a dying declaration---Not humanly possible for deceased to communicate after sustaining 90-98% burn injuries on his
person that included almost each part of his body---Opinion given by doctor and his role in formulation of
dying declaration was intriguing from many angles---On the one hand doctor mentioned in medico-legal certificate
that deceased was oriented to time and space with presence of speaking power and on the other hand, he noted eyes as
semi opened with mouth swollen and whole head and face black with all hair burnt plunging deceased into a
dehydration shock---Even the strongest man on God's earth under such agonizing moments could not communicate---
dying declaration depicted two different formats and handwriting which could not possibly be result of one sitting
exercise---Such dying declaration merited outright rejection---Broken latch of door with an iron nail coupled with
injuries on the person of sister of one accused which were multiple and extensive in numbers and nature and reference
to some love letters went a long way to spell out a scenario which was the nearest to the position taken by sister of one
accused--- High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and acquitted all three accused of the
charge---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

PAIRA VS State
Dying Declaration--TERM , Presumption--TERM , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 ,
Art. 46(1)---dying declaration---Presumption---dying declaration is presumably a declaration of truth; it is the only
statement which is allowed to be admitted in evidence of its maker after his departure to the world hereinafter, under a
belief that he while being face to face with God narrated truth, the whole truth and nothing but truth and it is such
presumptive solemnity that rigors of administering oath and cross examination are dispensed with, leaving the person
adversely affected in an awfully vulnerable position.

GHULAM HAIDER VS State
Art. 46--- dying declaration--- Mode of recording---No specific mode of recording the dying declarations was
prescribed, but it was very much relevant to prove that the statement was actually made by the deceased being well
oriented in time and space at the relevant time without any extraneous influence.

Appreciation of Evidence--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Qatl-e-amd--Term ,
S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Daylight occurrence, was reported to the
Police without any deliberate or conscious delay---Son of the deceased, who was the only eye-witness, appeared to
prove the prosecution case through ocular account---Conviction could be based upon the statement of even a solitary
witness, if the same inspired confidence, and carried unimpeachable character---Son of the deceased had filed a
private complaint and got recorded his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. without any discrepancy---Said witness
remained firm to his stance, during the cross-examination---Despite cross-examination at considerable length no
discrepancy or inconsistency, with rest of the prosecution evidence, could be surfaced, even after about two years
between the occurrence and his statement before the Trial Court---Said witness remained coherent, especially to the
extent of role assigned by him to accused---Presence of said witness at the scene of occurrence at relevant time had
fully been established---No person from the court compound, where incident took place, appeared in evidence to deny
the happening of incident at the place and time narrated by the complainant---Prosecution witness had no reason to
falsely implicate accused in a daylight occurrence---Accused was the only person, who had been assigned the role of
causing both firearm injuries to the deceased---Case of acquitted co-accused persons, was on different footings from
that of accused, as none of them was assigned any injury to the deceased or any other witness---Said acquitted co-
accused, were not armed with any weapon at the time of occurrence---Rule of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" was
not applicable and the courts were under burden to sift grain from the chaff; and that had been done by the Trial Court
in the case---Accused was not directly connected with motive of occurrence---Even if evidence of motive and
evidence of recovery of crime, was excluded, the prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused,
through confidence inspiring ocular account furnished by the prosecution witness, which was strongly corroborated by
the medical evidence, the dying declaration of the deceased---Alleged recovery of crime weapon and evidence of
motive, coupled with the acquittal of five co-accused, were sufficient mitigating circumstances, necessitating the
reduction in quantum of sentence awarded to accused---Alternate sentence of imprisonment for life to accused, would
meet the ends of justice---Maintaining the conviction of accused, his death sentence, was altered to imprisonment for
life, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2016 YLR 978 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case

2006 SCMR 1628, 2010 SCMR 1772, 2011 SCMR 646, 2012 SCMR 327, 2015 SCMR 155, PLD 2006 SC 255,
Benefit of Doubt--TERM , Dying Declaration--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--
304 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984--46 ,
Ss. 302 & 304--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 46---Qatl-i-amd liable to qisas---Reappraisal of evidence, proof
of qatl-i-amd---Benefit of doubt---dying declaration---Oral dying declaration before private persons---Scope---Perusal
of record revealed that none of witnesses including complainant had seen the accused committing the offence and it
was clear from evidence available on record that not one of the witnesses was an eye-witness of the incident who had
seen accused persons firing at deceased and causing him injuries or robbing from the deceased---Trial Court
considered the statement of the victim when he was injured as dying declaration and made it a basis for conviction of
the accused and it had to be seen whether the injured had made any such statement before complainant and other
witnesses and whether such statement could be termed as "dying declaration"---Material discrepancies existed in the
depositions of the complainant and the prosecution witness; and from such material discrepancies; the presence of the
complainant and prosecution witnesses at place of occurrence stood highly doubtful---Victim was rushed to the
hospital in an injured condition and later succumbed to his injuries there; however, if victim was in a position to make
a statement before other persons regarding incident at place of occurrence and police were also present at the spot;
then the question arose as to why the police did not record dying declaration of the victim when even the police could
register case on statement of injured victim at the spot---Nothing in the deposition of police witnesses had came on
record to indicate that deceased had made such a statement; and in such circumstances; dying declaration of the
deceased was highly doubtful and could not be established---Although there is no bar on oral dying declaration before
private person(s); however in the present case the very statement of deceased before prosecution witnesses was highly
doubtful and could not be believed and furthermore presence of prosecution witnesses at place of occurrence as last
seen witnesses was also doubtful---Neither any crime weapon had been recovered from the accused nor chemical
expert report in respect of blood stained clothes was produced---All prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses
besides being close relatives of deceased and no independent witness had been associated to corroborate prosecution
case despite availability of the same---Evidence of the prosecution, therefore, suffered from material discrepancies;
having no independent corroboration which could not be relied upon and made basis for conviction of accused---
Benefit of doubt, therefore, had to be extended to the accused---Convictions and sentences imposed on the accused
were set aside and accused were acquitted of the charge---Appeals were allowed, accordingly.

Dying Declaration Judgements by Aamir Khan Adv - PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dying Declaration Judgements by Aamir Khan Adv - PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Your Search returned total 129 records from 50 - 100

Your Search returned total 129 records from 100 - 129

Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 1461 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 325 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 719 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 719 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 719 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1323 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1323 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 YLRN 62 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJN 16 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJN 16 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJN 16 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJN 16 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1594 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 YLR 1594 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 1631 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2021 YLR 785 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2242 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2242 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 YLR 2242 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 YLR 1169 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1361 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1361 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1361 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1322 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1322 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 387 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 197 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 197 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 197 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 175 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJN 175 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 1419 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 45 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 PCrLJ 45 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1202 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2508 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2508 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2508 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2508 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2508 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1308 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1008 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 1008 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 1073 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1710 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1710 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 979 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 979 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 979 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 136 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2547 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLRN 87 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 YLR 2144 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 149 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJN 48 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case

Citation Name: 2019 PLD 27 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURTBookmark this Case