MUHAMMAD NAZIM vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 82 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 NAZIM VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of complainant at the spot doubted---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of son of the complainant by firing---There was a serious issue about the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence---Star witness for the prosecution was complainant, he was father of the deceased though narrated the occurrence in examination-in-chief to make it confirmable to the facts stated in the FIR as well as in his supplementary statement---Complainant stated that he filed an application for registration of FIR yet that fact needed to be evaluated in the light of evidence put forth through his statement---Complainant deposed during cross-examination that he had written an application for lodging of FIR at hospital where there was a person from whom he got the application written---Said witness further deposed that his three sons were alive, one of his son was police official---All such sons duly participated in the Mehndi ceremony and after occurrence they all brought the deceased to the hospital---Complainant admitted that he had not asked any of his sons to write an application for lodging of FIR---Witness further admitted that an Advocate was his son-in-law, his one of his sons was middle pass while the other two were matriculate---Witness had not asked his sons to bring pencil and paper for writing the application and himself approached the nurses for paper and pencil---Application was written at about 01:00 a.m. to 01:15 a.m. and finally deposed that he could not tell with certainty that from whom an application for lodging of an FIR was written---Such facts rather indicated his absence at the place where he was trying to justify---Deposing of facts in such a manner was understandable when in later part of his cross-examination he categorically stated that he did not sign any document at hospital---Complainant further deposed that he did not take his son to Hospital which was near to Government Hospital---Complainant though deposed that Advocate, his son-in-law, was not invited in the Mehndi ceremony but in other breath, he deposed during cross-examination that said Advocate after having a dinner went to home, however, he did not accompany us for the hospital---Said fact was against the natural human conduct of a person whose brother-in-law had been murdered and he did not approach to the hospital which showed that there was something fishy in the matter which restrained such witness to come forward to depose---Said witness had made dishonest improvements during deposition before the Court---Such facts clearly stated that complainant was not present at the place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

MUHAMMAD NAZIM vs State Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported