MUHAMMAD AHMAD alias BAGGI vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 19 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 AHMAD alias BAGGI VS State Ss. 302(b), 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses--- Scope--- Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant---Prosecution case revolved around the statements of complainant and behnoi of the deceased---Admittedly both of the prosecution witnesses did not have their residences or their houses at or around the place of occurrence---Said witnesses were chance witnesses---Houses or the place of work or any land of both the witnesses had not been shown at or around the place of occurrence in the scaled site plan or the rough site plan of the place of occurrence---Both the witnesses were under a duty to prove as to why they had come to the place of occurrence, just prior to the occurrence, when they had no business to be there in the normal course of their routine---Eye-witness in his statement before the Trial Court did not give any reason for his sudden arrival at the place of occurrence, the shop of the deceased, which shop was under construction during the days of the occurrence---Complainant failed in his endeavour to prove the reason for his presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Alleged Eye-witnesses were not mentioned in column No.4 or the Page 4 of the inquest report as being the ones who were shown to have been present at the time of preparation of the said inquest report by the investigating officer though the same was prepared at the place of occurrence---Said witnesses were also not the ones who had identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem examination of the same---Both the witnesses claimed that after the occurrence they attended to the deceased---Clothes of both the eye-witnesses should have been smeared with blood, however, the Investigating Officer of the case, did not take any such blood-stained clothes of the witnesses in possession---All the said omission were conspicuous by their absence---In absence of physical proof or the reason for the presence of the witnesses at the crime scene, the same could not be relied upon---Allegedly, the cousin of the deceased was stated to be present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence was narrated to have witnessed the same---While appearing before the Trial Court said witness did not narrate any details of the occurrence and furthermore did not identify the accused present in the Trial Court---Said witness also did not state that eye-witnesses were also present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and that both the said witnesses had even seen the occurrence---Said witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution nor he was re-examined nor any application was submitted for his further examination and the evidence of said witness was admitted as true by the prosecution---No reason existed which could have persuaded said witness for not naming the appellants as accused in his statement before the Trial Court---When said witness did not saddle the accused with the responsibility of committing the occurrence, it could not be presumed the same---Unchallenged statement of said witness wherein he neither named the accused present before the Trial Court as accused nor named the witnesses as being present at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence, was in itself sufficient to put the entire prosecution case in the realm of obscurity---Prosecution witnesses, who claimed to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence, were worthy of no reliance as they failed to prove any fact in issue---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD AHMAD alias BAGGI vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported