MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1753 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD VS State Ss. 302, 324, 34, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Injured witness---Scope---Accused were charged for making firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person of the complainant party was hit and died, whereas the other become injured---Prosecution for ocular account had put injured and took help from previous statement of complainant recorded in an earlier case for corroboration, yet it was lurking on legal premises with respect to its method of tendering into evidence---Before embarking upon testimony of injured, role of accused with respect to injury on the head of deceased was examined in the light of medical evidence and position of parties at the crime scene---Entry wound on left pinna of ear was notpossible from point of presence of accused and the deceased with stated positions who were facing each other, when the witness deposed that they alighted from their bikes---Other stance of turning back the bikes though was not proved, yet for the sake of argument, if it was considered that seeing the assailant, deceased tried to turn back and in that position received the fire, then deceased must have fallen from the motor bike and corresponding injuries due to fall should have been on his person which were missing in the post mortem report and deposition of doctor---Injured was also sitting at rear seat but did not have such injuries on his person---Injured admitted that both the parties related inter se and developed enmity was also evident---Injured witness faced certain confrontation during his deposition before the court which he could not justifiably accounted for---Said witness admitted that near the place of occurrence, number of people resided but none of them came forward to support the prosecution version---Accused also claimed his marriage with sister of that witness who was later divorced yet that fact was denied by said witness---Similarly, said witness denied the suggestion that he in fact committed the murder of deceased, which was the first version of accused before Investigating Officer, yet prosecution could not rebut those facts due to non-appearance of Investigating Officer---Injured witness admitted that he and a witness were resident of another village while deceased and complainant were resident of another place which was at a distance of 1 x 1½ kilometer from the place of occurrence---Injured resident of ¾ acres from the place of occurrence and was aware of the area and the people around him---Injured, he reached the hospital after four hours despite he was seriously injured---Though Medical Officer had observed duration of his injury about six hours which created serious doubt about time and place of occurrence---Yet place of occurrence could also be not proved because of the reason that Investigating Officer as well as draftsman could not appear as being dead---Transposition of statement of draftsman was not according to law and secondary evidence for Investigating Officer did not establish the fact under discussion---Testimony of that witness with stammered presentation did not ring true particularly when he had already stood disbelieved in the previous trial for his own injuries---Evidence of injured could not be stretched against the accused for sustaining the conviction and sentence--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJ 1753 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PCRLJ