NAWAZ AHMAD vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 2466 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.

NAWAZ AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-L(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, hurt, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence--- Contradictions---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also injuring the complainant---Eye-witnesses stated that first injury at the head of the deceased was inflicted by acquitted accused, due to which blood started oozing and thereafter, the present accused inflicted injuries at the head and other parts of the deceased's body---Eye-witness stated that the injury allegedly attributed to said acquitted accused was not declared as a cause of death by the doctor during his autopsy---accused to whom the fatal injury was assigned by the eye-witnesses had been acquitted of the charge through the impugned judgment, which clearly showed that both the acclaimed eye-witnesses made false statement against the acquitted accused---If some part of their testimony was found false, the same would be discarded as a whole---Present accused were assigned the role of inflicting Sota blows at the head of the deceased---Similarly, acquitted co-accused was also specifically assigned the role of inflicting iron rod blow at the same locale of the deceased---Medical Officer who examined the deceased in injured condition and observed four injuries at his person including two injuries at the head---Medical Officer who held autopsy on the dead body of deceased observed eight injuries at his person---One injury was found fatal wherein piece of bone was separated from the skull top to left side---Furthermore hematoma and clotted blood was observed on the left side of brain elevating parital, temporal, frontal bonds damaging underline brain---From the medical evidence, it was clear that both the injuries at the head of deceased were of almost at the same locale and there was only a difference of exerting force for causing such injuries, showing that both said injuries were caused by the same person with the same kind of weapon---Medical evidence lent no support to the ocular account---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ocular account---Scope---If the ocular account is disbelieved, rest of the evidence, howsoever strong might be, being corroboratory in nature, could not be made basis to maintain conviction and sentence of the accused. Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-L(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, hurt, common intention---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Presence of eyewitnesses at the spot was doubtful---Scope--- accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also injuring the complainant---Complainant/brother and brother-in-law of the deceased furnished the ocular account---Incident had taken place at a taxi stand, which, admittedly, was not the place the residence of the acclaimed eye-witnesses--- Incumbent upon eye-witnesses to furnish any solid reason in order to establish their presence at the spot at the relevant time---Testimony of complainant had much significance, who after narrating entire episode of the incident with minute detail of role of each assailants stated that on their hue and cry many people including the eye-witnesses attracted at the spot---If that part of statement of the complainant was taken as a true version, it depicted another picture that the said witness attracted at the spot when the occurrence was already over---Said witness was brother-in-law of the deceased as well as the complainant and in such a close relationship, it did not appeal to ordinary prudence and led to presume that had he been present there at the relevant time, he would have received any injury---In the attending circumstances, it seemed to be proved that the said witness was not present at the spot at the relevant time and he was planted subsequently in order to strengthen the prosecution story, being close relative of the deceased as well as the complainant---So far as testimony of complainant was concerned, no doubt he claimed to have sustained injuries at the spot, however, stamp of injuries on his person was not sufficient to take his testimony as a gospel truth---Complainant claimed to have sustained injuries at the hands of co-accused (since acquitted) but he could not establish the same in his deposition before the Trial Court and in consequence thereof, Trial Court acquitted said co-accused by disbelieving testimony of the eye-witnesses including the injured witness to that extent---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-a(i), 337-L(2) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, hurt, common intention--- appreciation of evidence---Eye-witnesses, evidence of---Corroboration---accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also injuring the complainant---Co-accused was equally assigned the role of inflicting iron rod blow at the head of deceased but he had already been acquitted of the charge by the trial court by disbelieving the prosecution evidence to his extent and as such, the same could not be believed to the extent of the present accused, having exactly identical role---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Witness--- Statement of injured witness--- Scope--- Testimony of an injured witness could not be believed when he failed to establish the injuries on his own person against any of the accused.

NAWAZ AHMAD vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 2466 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR