AHMAD KHAN vs State S — 2022 YLR 2086 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.

AHMAD KHAN VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence was doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant---Record showed that after receiving information about the missing of paternal cousin of complainant, the complainant, her son, deceased and his brother came out from their house for search of her cousin---Said persons straightaway came into house of occurrence within 5/6 minutes---Deceased when entered into the room accused fired at him; meaning thereby, occurrence took place between 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.---Complainant had deposed that police reached at the spot after 1 or 1½ hours; Investigating Officer in his statement deposed that he received information regarding occurrence at 10:00 a.m. and reached at the place of occurrence at 10:45 a.m.---Question was that why application for registration of case was prepared and moved to police with delay; why dead body was received in hospital with unexplained delay and why police papers were not sent with the dead body and same were received by Medical Officer with unexplained delay in the hospital---If post-mortem was delayed, as in the present case, then it was sufficient to establish that none of cited eye-witnesses including complainant was present at the time and place of occurrence---Time had been consumed for consultation, deliberation, procuring, inducing the witnesses and tailoring/concocting false story for registration of the case---Neither occurrence was promptly reported to the police nor case was registered promptly, hence, no sanctity could be attached to FIR and that important limb of prose-cution, which had to lay foundation of the case, had rather smashed the same---Presence of complainant and cited eye-witness at the relevant time at the alleged place of occurrence had also become doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant---Record showed that in application for registration of case, no time of occurrence had been mentioned---Complainant lady had not mentioned any time of occurrence in her examination-in-chief---Inquest report showed brief history, time of occurrence as 10.00 a.m., whereas time regarding information of death had been mentioned in Column No. 3 of 1st page of inquest report as 12:30 p.m.---First page of post-mortem report, 12:30 (noon) had been mentioned as time of death---During cross-examination, Investigating Officer had stated that at 10:00 am, he was informed about occurrence by the Moharir and he reached at the place of occurrence at 10:45 a.m.---Said state of affairs, clearly established that neither prosecution was sure about exact time of occurrence nor could establish the same---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empty---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant---Record showed that pistol 12 bore was recovered on the pointation of the accused---No empty shell was found at place of occurrence---Allegedly recovered weapon and empty found in the same at the time of recovery were sent together to Forensic Science Agency---Weapon was allegedly recovered from open and public place, which was accessible to anyone---Recovery witness was also cited as eye-witness, therefore, he could not corroborate his own evidence---Pellets recovered from dead body of the deceased were not sent for comparison with allegedly recovered weapon---Recovery of weapon was of no help to the prosecution--- Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive piece of evidence as it could not tell qua author of the injury. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant---Claim of the prosecution was that the moment deceased entered the door of the kitchen/room, accused fired at him, therefore, direction of injury should be from downward to upward, but in the present case, position was otherwise i.e. vice-versa---Perusal of statement of Medical Officer showed that in the present case, injury was from upward to downward, therefore, medical evidence had not supported the ocular account, rather negated the same---Medical evidence and post-mortem report had also not been put to the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., therefore, could not be used against him---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Place of occurrence was doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant---According to prosecution, place of occurrence was a house of another person remained in exclusive control and surveillance of complainant and other cited eye-witnesses after the occurrence till arrival of police, because as per claim of prosecution, accused fled away immediately from there, but no blood of deceased was secured from there---Availability of blood or any pellet/firing mark had not been found over there---Prosecution, claimed that dead body of the deceased remained there at place of occurrence for sufficient period, time between injury and death was immediate, death was due to hemorrhage i.e. blood loss and shock, therefore, non-availability of blood at stated place of occurrence had raised eyebrows and left question mark---Owner and resident of said house was neither witness nor accused, same was the position with respect to his remaining house mates---Neither said owner of house nor his any house mate had been joined into the investigation of the case---Place of occurrence had not been established---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing due to grudge of return of paternal cousin of the complainant---Admittedly, complainant and cited eye-witness were not residents of the vicinity where occurrence took place, therefore, they were chance witnesses---Being chance witnesses, they were bound to prove valid reason of unimpeachable character for establishing their presence at the alleged place of occurrence---Complainant, stated that some person came to her house and told that his daughter was missing, upon which, she along with his son, deceased and his brother came out of the house for search of missing lady, but why said person did not accompany them for search of missing lady; then how they obtained knowledge that missing lady was in the house of that person and then how they came to know that accused was hiding in the kitchen of the house under the cot---House in question was adjacent to the other house; missing lady was even not found in the house of occurrence---Said reason/version did not appeal to the man of common prudence, same was neither plausible nor probable and by no stretch of imagination could be termed as of unimpeachable character, which was sine qua non i.e. mandatory for believing chance witness, thus, on that score alone, evidence of complainant and cited eye-witness could not be believed without pinch of salt---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove charge against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

AHMAD KHAN vs State S — 2022 YLR 2086 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR