ALI RAZA vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 21 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.

ALI RAZA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Eye-witnesses had claimed that they were present at their shop at the relevant time, but no such shop was shown in the scaled sketch of the crime scene---Draftsman, who had prepared scaled sketch, also stated before the Trial Court in clear terms that there was no residence or shop of the complainant party near the venue of occurrence---Said prosecution witnesses also maintained that they were residents of the locality within the precincts of which the incident had taken place, but during cross-examination, it was proved by the defence that they were in fact residing in another Chak during the days of incident---Keeping in view the said established facts, the alleged eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court were nothing but chance witnesses, who failed to justify their presence at the crime scene at the relevant time, which prompted not to place any reliance on them---Investigating Officer during cross-examination stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence many persons were present there, but none from the residents of Chak of complainant was present there, whereas, the alleged eye-witnesses were the residents of that Chak---Investigating Officer further stated that he had recorded the statements of two persons as the eye-witnesses of the incident---Investigating Officer had drastically dented the prosecution version by admitting that when he firstly visited the place of occurrence, nobody else except said two persons had claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident---Investigating Officer was prosecution's important and crucial witness, who eventually falsified the alleged eye-witnesses qua their presence at the spot---Neither the testimony of Investigating Officer was ever disowned by the prosecution nor he was declared as a hostile witness in order to control the damage caused by him to the prosecution's case---Circumstances suggested that complainant and his son were not available at the crime scene and they had not witnessed the tragedy with their own eyes and as such they could not be relied upon for the purpose of maintaining conviction and sentence of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution case was not free from doubt, benefit of which would resolve in favour of accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

ALI RAZA vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 21 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported