| Case ID |
1e2a13a1-fab2-4004-ba7e-95acffaf753e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeal No. 230, Criminal Acquittal Appeal |
| Decision Date |
Apr 30, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 20, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Balochistan High Court allowed the appeal against conviction filed by Abdul Wahid, setting aside the trial court's judgment that had convicted him under section 302(b) of the Penal Code for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court found serious doubts in the prosecution's case, particularly due to the reliability of witness testimonies, the delay in lodging the FIR, and the absence of corroborating evidence. The testimonies of the complainant and other witnesses were deemed not credible, as they were found to have made dishonest improvements and lacked consistency. The prosecution failed to establish a clear case against the appellant, leading to his acquittal. The other appeals concerning acquittal and the quantum of punishment were dismissed for lack of merit. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around a criminal trial concerning the murder of Abdul Haleem, where the Balochistan High Court reviewed the conviction of Abdul Wahid. The court scrutinized the testimonies of related witnesses, emphasizing that while their evidence cannot be dismissed solely due to their relationship with the victim, the lack of corroboration and inconsistencies raised doubts about their reliability. The prosecution's failure to promptly lodge the FIR and the significant delay allowed for potential manipulation of testimonies further undermined the case. The court highlighted the importance of credible witness accounts and the need for corroborative evidence in criminal proceedings, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant. The case underscores critical issues in criminal justice, such as the impact of witness credibility and the procedural integrity of evidence collection. Keywords such as 'criminal appeal', 'murder conviction', 'witness credibility', 'FIR delay', and 'evidence corroboration' are central to understanding the case's implications in legal discourse. |
| Court |
Balochistan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
NAEEM AKHTAR AFGHAN, JUSTICE,
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Najmuddin Mengal and Attaullah Langov for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2019),
Qazi Najeeb-ur-Rehman for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2019),
Qazi Najeeb-ur-Rehman for Appellant/Complainant (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.237 of 2019),
Ashiq Ali Jatoi for Respondents (in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.237 of 2019),
Qazi Najeeb-ur-Rehman for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2019),
Najmuddin Mengal and Attaullah Langove for Respondents (in Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2019),
Abdul Latif Kabar, A.P.G. for the State (in Criminal Revision Petition No.24 of 2019)
|
| Petitioners |
ABDUL WAHID AND OTHERS
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1501,
2021 YLR 913
|
| Other Citations |
Bashir Ahmed v. The State 2019 SCMR 1417,
Munir Ahmed v. The State 2019 SCMR 2006,
Allahyar v. The State 1990 SCMR 1134,
Mahmood Ahmad and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127,
Imran Hussain v. Amir Arshad and 2 others 1997 SCMR 438,
Muhammad Rafique v. The State 2014 SCMR 1698,
Altaf Hussain v. The State 2019 SCMR 274,
Muhammad Asif v. The State 2017 SCMR 486,
Muhammad Sadiq v. The State PLD 1960 SC 223,
Tariq Gul v. Ziarat Gul 1976 SCMR 236,
Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1984 SCMR 930,
Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 1627,
Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhshah 1998 SCMR 570,
Shahidullah v. Eid Marjan and 2 others 2014 PCr.LJ 1684,
Amin Ali and another v. The State 2011 SCMR 323,
Ghulam Akbar and another v. The State 2008 SCMR 1064,
Amir Zaman v. Mahboob and others 1985 SCMR 685
|
| Laws Involved |
Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
302(b),
324,
109,
147,
148,
149,
154,
161
|