IFTIKHAR vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 43 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.

IFTIKHAR VS State Ss. 302, 337-F(iii), 394, 397, 109, 411 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, mutalahimah, person voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, abetment, dishonestly receiving stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Scope---Prosecution case was that during the commission of robbery, one person was killed and other sustained injuries due to firing made by the accused---Accused were not nominated in the FIR, arrested in the case being suspects under S.54, Cr.P.C., when they were already under custody in case under Ss. 399/402, P.P.C.---Investigating Officer stated in his statement (examination-in-chief) before the Trial Court that on the following day of the incident accused were sent to judicial lock up i.e. District Jail for their identification parade---Contrary to that, contents of application made by Investigating Officer before the District and Sessions Judge for identification parade showed that accused were arrested and sent to judicial lock up on the same day for identification parade---Order of the District and Sessions Judge was passed on the same day directing Judicial Magistrate to do the needful---Report of identification parade showed that accused at the time of identification parade was in standing position---In the body of the report, it was mentioned that dummies were also standing at that time, same was the case of co-accused---Contrary to that, witness specifically stated in his cross-examination that both the said accused were in sitting position along with dummies when he identified them---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that he did not know that both the accused were already under custody of police much earlier before the present occurrence---Likewise injured witness contrary to the contents of report of identification parade stated in his cross-examination that the accused and dummies were sitting at the time of test identification parade in the jail---Injured did not know that accused were already under arrest in some other case before test of identification parade---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

IFTIKHAR vs State Ss — 2022 YLRN 43 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported