EHSAN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 503 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.

EHSAN ULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b), 364 & 201---kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of dead body and some articles belonging to the deceased---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant after kidnapping him---Record showed that accused was arrested and on the same day while in custody of police he got recovered dead body and sleepers of deceased---Record revealed that the alleged recovery of dead body was effected from a sugarcane crop, whereas, Investigating Officer had stated in cross-examination that there was a crop of Charry and sugarcane---Investigating Officer added that he had not referenced that the part of yields of Charry and Sugarcane was broken---Said witness had conceded that he had not referenced the particular regions on which the harvest of Charry and sugarcane were planted and which region was open spot---Further conceded that he neglected to show the stature of yields---In the said conditions, the recuperation of dead body at the pointation of accused from an open spot, which opened to public everywhere, was not trustworthy---Prosecution case was that the accused got recovered clothes of deceased and his two mobile phones from an open place---Places of said recoveries were open places and were accessible for all---So far as memo of identification of motorcycle was concerned, that motorcycle was not recovered in the case while the same was allegedly got recovered by the accused in another case---No engine number, chasis number, registration number and even colour of motorcycle had been mentioned in FIR---Recovery witnesses happened to be real brothers inter-se---No independent witness had been associated qua the said recoveries---Admitted by Investigating Officer that complaint also failed to mention kind and colour of pair of shoes which were worn by the deceased---Said fact had also been admitted by Investigating Officer that in FIR, it had not been mentioned that pair of shoes were lying near the dead body of the deceased----Said recoveries, therefore, were not helpful to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

EHSAN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR