Previous enmity

2026 MLD 713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 114, 337-H(2), 148 & 149Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, unlawful assemblyPost-arrest bail, grant ofInquiry on non-vital part of the bodyPrevious enmity

Admittedly, there has been long standing landed dispute between the parties and both the eye-witnesses of the occurrence happened to the real brother and uncle of the complainant, therefore, false implication of petitioner in the background of previous enmity cannot be ruled out

First Information Report was lodged with delay of one day for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution

Role attributed to the petitioner/accused is that he allegedly fired from his gun upon injured/prosecution witness which hit him on his thigh, which is a non-vital part of the body

The injured being empty handed was consequently at the mercy of the petitioner/accused, even then he did not repeat fire upon him which showed that the petitioner/accused had no intention to commit his qatl-i-amd, therefore, application of S.324, P.P.C could only be established after recording evidence at the trial

The injury attributed to the petitioner/accused falls under S.337-H(2), P.P.C, which does not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C

In such circumstances, the accusation against the petitioner/accused is yet to be determined by the Trial Court after recording pro and contra facts through evidence

Moreover, the petitioner/accused being Pesh Imam in the locality has good repute and respect in the eyes of public and there is no other criminal record against the petitioner/ accused

Every accused is presumed to be blue eyed boy of the law until and unless he may be found guilty of alleged charge

Law cannot be stretched upon in favour of the prosecution particularly at bail stage

Medico Legal Officer has declared the injury sustained by the injured to be punishable under S.337-H(1), P.P.C which carries maximum punishment up to seven years, hence does not exceed limits of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C

Petitioner/accused has made out a good prima facie case for his release on bail within the meaning of subsection (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C

Bail application was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 YLR 1311 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 354 & 355Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7

Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person otherwise than on grave provocation, acts of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Previous enmity

Accused was charged for throwing acid at the face of daughter of the complainant, due to which the face, right eye and other parts of her body were burnt and she died

No material had been brought on record by the accused to show that the deep-rooted enmity existed earlier between the parties, which could have been the reason for false involvement of the accused in that case, particularly when it was a case of single accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

2023 YLR 1311 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Previous enmityPlea of accused that he had been implicated in the crime on account of previous enmityScope

Accused, in the matter of capital punishment, would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute/ enmity but would require to bring on record that there had been such a dispute/enmity which could be believed to have motivated the natural witnesses in involving the innocent at the cost of the escape of real culprits

If the natural witnesses are in blood-relations then normally the possibility of substitution becomes rare.

2022 MLD 744 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 34 & 289Damiyah, mutalahimah, negligent conduct with respect to animal and common intentionPre-arrest bail, refusal ofMedical and ocular evidencePrevious enmityScopeAccused sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR lodged under Ss. 337-F(i), 337-F(iii) and 34, P.P.C.

Specific allegation was levelled against the accused that he sicced his dog on the complainant which nipped his right leg near the ankle

Prosecution witnesses had got recorded their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., in support of the prosecution case and, according to them, incident was not an accident

Medical evidence had corroborated the ocular account and the doctor had declared the injuries sustained by the complainant as ghyr jaifah damiyhah and ghyr jaifah mutalahimah which attracted Ss. 337-F(i) and 337-F(iii) of P.P.C. respectively

Offence under the last mentioned provision was non-bailable

Tentative assessment of the available evidence and consideration of the facts revealed that there was also previous rivalry between accused and the complainant, as such, S.289, P.P.C., did not apply

Negligence which was the foundational element for that provision was missing

Application for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 SCMR 1285 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 392Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(a)Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, robbery, act of terrorismReappraisal of evidencePrevious enmityPlea of accused that he had been implicated in the crime on account of previous enmity

Held, that the accused had not been named in the FIR, an opportune course to engage him in the crime, if the complainant at all, had an axe to grind

Test identification parade, under magisterial supervision, was another piece of evidence, pointing towards the culpability of the accused

Accused had been rightly convicted by the Trial Court, which finding was upheld by the High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 SCMR 652 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qatl-i-amdReappraisal of evidenceMotivePrevious enmityMotive was always a double-edged weapon

Previous enmity could be a reason for the accused to commit the alleged crime, but it could equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the accused in the case for previous grouse.

2018 YLR 2433 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 337-A(i), 337-A(iii), 337-L(2) & 452Shajjah-i-Khafifa, Shajjah-i-hashimah, hurtAd-interim bail, confirmation ofGeneral role of accusedEffectPrevious enmityScope

FIR was lodged against accused and co-accused that they entered the house of complainant while carrying dandas hurled abuses, extended threats, maltreated two female members inflicted fist, kick and danda blows to one of said female and dragged her

Accused had been attributed general role without causing any injury to the victim

Litigation existed between the parties

One of the co-accused was stated to be 50% owner of the disputed house and his wife was living there

Applicability of S. 452, P.P.C. would be seen at the trial after recording of evidence

Considering the background of hostility between the parties, possibility of petitioner's false implication in the case as the result of widening the net could not be ruled out

Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed.

2018 YLRN 234 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 337-A(i), 337-H(2), 337-L(2), 147, 148 & 149Qatl-i-amd, hurt, rioting, unlawful assemblyPost arrest bail, grant ofFurther inquirySimple injuryDelay in lodging of FIRPrevious enmityEffect

Complainant nominated seven accused persons while three accused persons who allegedly made ineffective firing and caused blows on his person applied for bail

Injuries attributed to the petitioners were inconsistent with the medical evidence

First Information Report had been lodged with inordinate delay of 33 hours for which no plausible explanation had been furnished

Due consultation could not be ruled out in lodging of FIR in the background of murderous enmity

Main role of committing murder of the deceased had been assigned to the principal accused who was under custody

If doubt arose at bail stage, the same would entitle the accused/petitioner for extension of concession of bail on the ground of further inquiry as benefit of reasonable doubt must go to accused

Petitioners having made out a case of further inquiry into their guilt as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C., were admitted to bail.

2018 PCrLJN 184 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.497Penal Code (XLV of 1860 ), Ss. 302, 337-H(2) 148 & 149Qatl-i-amd, hurt , rioting armed with deadly weapon and common intentionBail, refusal ofPrevious enmityEffectOpinion of policeScope

Petitioner was nominated with other co-accused, who allegedly made firing at nephew of complainant with the allegation of "Siyah-Kari" resulting into his death

Petitioner contended that due to previous enmity, he was involved in general allegation of firing at the deceased as incident took place at dark hours of winter without any source of light, so police after investigation placed his name in Column No.2 of the challan

Benefit of plea of previous enmity could not be extended to the petitioner at bail stage, as enmity cut both ways which could be a cause for crime as well as implication

Parties were already known to each other so the identity of petitioner could not be mistaken

High Court observed that it would make no difference that the injury caused by the petitioner was fatal or otherwise, because the intention of the petitioner was very much there

Record showed that Judicial Magistrate did not approve the opinion of police regarding innocence of the petitioner and joined him as an accused

Opinion of police was not binding on the Court

Petitioner was, prima facie, connected with the commission of offence which fell within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Bail was refused to petitioner, in circumstances.

2017 YLR 320 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.302(b), 324, 337-F(iii) & 337-F(vi)Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, Ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah and Ghayr-jaifah munaqqilahAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtPrevious enmityDelay in autopsyPrevious enmity was a common ground and corroboration was rule of prudence and not that of lawCorroboration was imperative where witnesses, seemingly had an axe to grind

In absence of independent corroboration, it would be unsafe to rely upon an improved version of witnesses introduced for first time during trial

Improvements were so huge that they tend to change entire complexion of occurrence and therefore, could not be described merely as explanatory

Improvements were ludicrous to say the least as it was not possible for human eye to capture entry, exit and re-entry of a bullet that too inside the car in darkness

Once a witness was found to have a capacity and tendency to exaggerate, his testimony warranted stringent scrutiny particular in the case with the history of previous enmity

Delay between occurrence and autopsy admitted a reasonable possibility that FIR was not recorded at a point of time mentioned therein

All such circumstances cumulatively cast a shadow of doubt on prosecution story regarding accused and it was unsafe to maintain the conviction

High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused and acquitted him of the charge.

2016 SCMR 1593 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 497(2)Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 109Qatl-i-amd, rioting, armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly and abetmentBail, grant ofFurther inquiryPrevious enmityProbability of false implication

Admittedly both the accused persons were empty-handed during the incident in issue and they had not caused any injury to any person

Accused persons were elders of their co-accused who had fired at the deceased and there was a background of enmity between the parties based upon a previous murder

In such backdrop spreading the net wide by the complainant party so as to falsely entangle the accused persons in the present criminal case appeared to be a possibility which could not safely be ruled out

Investigation of the case had already been finalized, and challan had been submitted

Trial had commenced and statements of many prosecution witnesses had been recorded and, thus, physical custody of the accused persons was no longer required and their continued incarceration was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose

Case against the accused persons called for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Accused persons were admitted to bail accordingly.

2016 YLRN 188 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 (b), 324, 337-F (iii) & 148Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah mutalahimah and rioting armed with deadly weaponAppreciation of evidenceNumber of injuries commensurate with the number of assailantsMedical evidence was in line with ocular accountEvidence of injured witness was supported by medical evidenceFirst Information ReportSignificancePrevious enmityScopeAccused persons had participated in the occurrence with their common objectCommunity of intention of accused could hardly be looked at inquisitively

Injured witnesses were most important witnesses of the prosecution case whose testimonies gained corroborations from each other's respective deposition

No material contradictions or discrepancies were pointed out in the evidence of injured witnesses

Deceased had no direct enmity with the accused

Deceased had been murdered only for helping the complainant during investigation of another criminal case

First information report would not loose its efficacy albeit it suffered from a lacuna

First information report could be taken into consideration with allied connecting material for pronouncing a verdict of guilt

Number of injuries on the person of deceased and injured prosecution witnesses commensurate with the number of assailants

Accused had been specifically named by the eye-witnesses

Previous enmity between the parties was an admitted fact which motivated the accused to participate in the henious offence

Accused had been connected with the commission of offence right from the stage of firing till the last bullet was fired by them

Visual account of occurrence as tendered by the eye-witnesses could not be disbelieved in circumstances

Medical evidence was in line with the ocular account

Motive had been established by the prosecution

Trial Court had rightly convicted the accused persons

Impugned judgment did not suffer from any legal defect or infirmity

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLRN 181 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 (b), 148 & 149Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon and unlawful assemblyAppreciation of evidencePrevious enmityOcular account being shakyNon-production of injured witnessEffect

Trial Court convicted accused under S.302(b)/148/149, P.P.C and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation and in default to pay the said amount to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months

Benefit of S. 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the accused

Validity

Accused had no previous enmity or grudge against the deceased or any other person of the complainant party

Lacuna existed in the prosecution evidence

As to how the accused let their enemy-complainant go unharmed when they checked everyone and satisfied themselves with regard to death of all (as deposed by the complainant)

Participation of accused in the occurrence could not be proved in the absence of injured witness who had been abandoned without any cause

Prosecution had rendered ocular account and attached pieces of evidence mute by withholding injured witness

Ocular account being shaky and untrustworthy was brushed aside

When ocular account had been disbelieved then medical evidence would serve little the prosecution-cause

Prosecution had failed to prove case against the accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt

Impugned judgment was brimmed with many pitfalls, irreparable inconsistencies and a lot of infirmities

Conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge

Accused was discharged of his bail bonds

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 SCMR 749 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 307 & 34Qatl-e-amd, common intentionReappraisal of evidenceIndependent witnesses abandonedContradictions between statements of prosecution witnessesPrevious enmityProbability of false implicationWidened net of implication to rope in more accused personsInjuries not corroborating statements of injured witnessesEffect

Accused and co-accused persons were alleged to have launched an attack on complainant party which resulted in death of two persons and caused injuries to two victims

Trial Court awarded death sentence to two accused persons, while two other accused were sentenced to life imprisonment

Nine co-accused persons were acquitted by Trial Court

High Court acquitted all accused and co-accused persons

Validity

Witnesses whose testimony could have been independent had been abandoned by the prosecution

Real brother of the complainant who was examined as a prosecution witness denied that the occurrence was witnessed by the complainant, and thereby contradicted other prosecution witnesses who stated that complainant had in fact witnessed the occurrence

Contradictions existed between F.I.R. and evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding nature of weapon used by accused persons during the occurrence

According to the F.I.R. as many as seventeen (17) persons were charged but effective shots had been attributed to four, but according to the statements of prosecution witnesses effective shots had been attributed to five accused persons

Allegedly all the assailants were standing close to each other and so were the victims, thus it was humanly impossible to discern who fired the shot and whose shot hit the deceased or the injured particularly in a situation which was reigned by panic and pandemonium

Number of assailants in the circumstances of the case appeared to have been exaggerated

Seemingly most of the accused persons had been charged because of previous enmity

Incident might have been enacted by two of the accused persons because one of the deceased was alleged to have illicit relations with their sister, but other accused and co-accused who had no visible nexus with such part of the story had also been roped in

Acquittal of co-accused persons was not challenged with seriousness either before the High Court or the Supreme Court

Firearm entry wound found on the person of one of the prosecution witnesses caused by a shot fired from a distance of 13 feet was accompanied by blackening, which was not possible beyond 3 feet, especially when it had never been the case of prosecution witnesses that any of the assailants fired from a close or contact range

Prosecution version was full of doubts from whatever angle it was looked at

Judgment of acquittal passed by High Court did not warrant any interference in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2013 MLD 1645 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302/34Qatl-e-amd, common intentionBail, grant ofWeapon not used during occurrencePrevious enmityProbability of false implicationNon-association of independent witness during arrestEffect

Accused was allegedly holding a hatchet in his hand during the occurrence in which deceased was killed by firing made by a co-accused

Although name of accused transpired in the F.I.R. but he did not use his hatchet at the time of incident

No independent witness was associated as mashir during arrest of accused

Accused was in jail for a period of more than one year

Enmity between parties was admitted, therefore, false implication of accused could not be ruled out

No sufficient grounds existed for holding that accused had committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life

Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.