HAMZA YAQOOB vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 1924 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.

HAMZA YAQOOB VS State Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Test identification parade---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---According to record, three accused were arrested and immediately thereafter were lodged in judicial custody for holding of identification test---Record showed that identification proceedings were held without any delay under the supervision of Special Judicial Magistrate---During said proceedings, the two eye-witnesses identified two accused and that too in reference to their specific roles---During identification proceedings, accused was burdened by the two eye-witnesses with the allegation of inflicting fatal shot upon the chest of deceased---Accused was subjected to identification proceedings in consonance with the instructions laid down in High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Chapter 11, Part-C---Both the eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length by the defence but nothing could be extracted which might cast doubt about the legal worth and credibility of the identification proceedings---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot not doubtful---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Record showed that deceased and two eye-witnesses used to work at a Mill---Incident occurred when all the three after getting free from their work place reached the house of one eye-witness---Said witness while boarding a motorcycle dropped him---Crime scene was situated almost at the door step of eye-witness as was evident from site plan---Said foregoing aspect was sufficient to prove the presence of both the eye-witnesses at the spot---Even otherwise, the incident occurred at 07:00 p.m., whereas the statement of eye-witness was recorded without any delay at about 08:45 p.m.---Such prompt reporting of crime, more importantly by describing the assailants as unknown, out-rightly excluded all hypotheses about the absence of eye-witnesses from the spot---Purity of the ocular account was evident from the fact that two eye-witnesses were having no previous enmity with the accused, thus there was not even a remote possibility of false implication through substitution---Both the eye-witnesses provided confidence inspiring details of the incident including the number of assailants, the time and manner of incident, the description of snatched articles, the mode of shifting the deceased to hospital and the arrival of police---Presence of eye-witnesses at the spot was satisfactorily proved by the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.40---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Non-association of private persons in recovery proceedings---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Recoveries were called in question by the defence solely on the ground that the same were affected in violation of S.103, Cr.P.C., as no witness from the vicinity was associated during recovery proceedings by the police---Said articles were recovered upon the disclosure of accused, thus were relevant under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence. art. 22---Joint identification parade---Scope--- appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in--- Joint identification was not prohibited by Rules and Orders of the (Lahore) High Court, Chapter 11, Part-C, but identification proceedings were desired to be conducted separately in pursuance of rule of prudence---Secondly, word "ordinarily" and the expression could be taken in suggestive form and not as mandatory in nature---If identification test proceedings were otherwise impeccable in nature, those could not be discarded solely on account of having been jointly conducted in respect of more than one accused, more importantly when each suspect was placed in a separate row and mixed with required quantity of dummies. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Record showed that accused led to the recovery of 30 bore pistol---Importance and relevance of the recovered pistol could well be gauged from the fact that according to Forensic Science Agency Report it was found wedded with the solitary crime empty secured through memo from the crime scene--- During examination under S.342. Cr.P.C., accused was specifically confronted with the afore-mentioned recoveries but he miserably failed to put forth any explanation so as to dislodge that part of prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Recovery of looted property---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Stance of both the eye-witnesses was that during incident accused persons snatched Rs.7,50,000/-, registration book of motorcycle, accounts register and CNIC of a witness--- During investigation accused made a disclosure and led to the recovery of partial snatched amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and the registration book of motorcycle through recovery memo---Said recovery proceedings were witnessed by a witness and he narrated flawless details about them---Recovery of articles from accused snatched during the crime reflected strongly upon his guilt, more so when he failed to put forth any acceptable explanation in that regard---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Record showed that the prosecution was successful in proving its case against accused under S302(b), P.P.C. beyond any scintilla of ambiguity and as such no reason to upset the findings qua his conviction on the said charge is available on record---Quantum of sentence awarded to accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., needed indulgence on two fold grounds: Firstly, primary intention of the perpetrators was to rob the victim and not to take life, though accused fired fatal shot but when deceased made an attempt to foil the robbery--- Nothing as such was available on record so as to hold that accused was even previously remained involved in cases of alike nature or had committed murder of some person---Secondly, it was noticed that accused inflicted a solitary firearm injury on the chest of the deceased and opted against inflicting some more injuries---Infliction of solitary firearm injury was also considered an acknowledged mitigating circumstance warranting conversion of death sentence into imprisonment for life. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Incident took place in a residential locality and in the site plan, the presence of electricity bulb was clearly shown---Presence of light at the spot was further substantiated from the deposition of eye-witnesses who specifically mentioned that two electricity bulbs were lit at the eventful time---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence. Ss. 302, 396, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased by firing during dacoity---Medical evidence furnished by Medical Officer who received the corpse of deceased at about 08:00 p.m. and conducted the autopsy at about 09:30 p.m.---Inevitably, the post-mortem examination was conducted without afflux of any uncalled for delay---On one hand such prompt autopsy indicated and reflected positively upon the acclaimed presence of eye-witnesses and on the other hand supported the ocular account as the solitary firearm injury observed by the doctor coincided with the locale described by the eye-witnesses---Even the duration between death and post-mortem observed by the Medical Officer was in consonance with the time of incident narrated by the two eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances death sentence of the accused was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with alteration in sentence.

HAMZA YAQOOB vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 1924 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR