MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs State Benefit of doubt — 2022 YLR 1981 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 YOUNIS VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single circumstance which created doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same would be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three hours and twenty five minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the father of complainant by firing---Occurrence in the case took place at 04:00 p.m. but the FIR was lodged on the same day at 07:25 p.m. i.e. after three hours and twenty five minutes of the occurrence---Distance between the place of occurrence and police station was only one Kilometer---Keeping in view the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence and its distance from the police station, it seemed that the FIR had not been promptly lodged in the case---No plausible explanation for the delay of three hours and twenty five minutes in lodging the FIR had been given by any prosecution witness specially when the deceased died at the spot and the police station was situated at a distance of only one kilometer from the place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against he accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification was provided for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the father of complainant by firing---Record showed that the complainant had conceded during his cross-examination that photographs of the deceased were taken during investigation and in the said photographs, eyes of the deceased looked semi open---Said fact showed that the complainant, who was real son of the deceased and other eye-witness, who was son-in-law of the deceased, were not present at the spot because had the said witnesses been present at the spot at the time of occurrence then they would have closed the eyes of the deceased---Both the eye-witnesses did not give any valid reason for their presence at "J" on the day of occurrence and as such they were chance witnesses, therefore, their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was not free from doubt---Prosecution story did not appeal to prudent mind because if the accused party had planned to commit the murder of deceased and they had taken the deceased inside their house then as to why they kept on waiting for two and half hours till the arrival of witnesses to commit the murder of the deceased so that they the prosecution eye-witnesses might witness the occurrence and give evidence against them--- Prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against he accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of eleven hours and thirty minutes in conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the father of complainant by firing---Post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted on the next day of the occurrence at 03:35 a.m., which meant that the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted after 11½ hours from the time of occurrence---No plausible explanation had been given by the Medical Officer or by any other prosecution witness for the said delay in conducting the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased---High Court observed that said fact suggested that eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence therefore, the said delay was used in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the father of complainant by firing---According to the prosecution case the motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased refused to teach demonography (AMLIYAAT) to the accused and due to that grudge the accused persons committed the murder of deceased---No cogent evidence had been produced by the prosecution to prove the said motive---No specific date, time and place as to when and where the accused and his co-accused asked the deceased to teach them demonography (AMLIYAAT) and refusal of the deceased to do so had been given by any prosecution witness---Only a vague and general motive had been alleged by the prosecution, therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged motive against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against he accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence on the pointation of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the father of complainant by firing---Record showed that pistol 30 bore was recovered on the pointatoin of the accused and positive report of the Forensic Science Agency---According to the statement of Moherror, Investigating Officer handed over to him a parcel said to contain 30 bore pistol which he handed over to Investigating Officer for its onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---Investigating Officer although stated that he handed over the parcel of pistol to Moherror for keeping the same in safe custody and for its onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency but he did not state that he received back the parcel of pistol from Moherror and deposited the same in the office of the Forensic Science Agency--- Said facts suggested that the safe custody and transmission of parcel containing pistol to the office of the Forensic Science Agency had not been proved in the case by the prosecution beyond the shadow of doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence and ocular account--- Conflict--- Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the father of complainant by firing---Medical evidence of the prosecution was furnished by Medical Officer---According to the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses the fire shot made by the accused landed at the left side on the back of head of the deceased but according to the medical evidence the entry wound was on the back of right side of the head behind right ear of the deceased and as such there was conflict between the ocular account and medical evidence of the prosecution, which had created doubt in the prosecution story---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against he accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Witness---Chance witness---Scope---If a chance witness was unable to establish the reason of his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence then his evidence was not worthy of reliance.

MUHAMMAD YOUNIS vs State Benefit of doubt — 2022 YLR 1981 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR