Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL vs State S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Weapon of offence recovered on the disclosure of accused---Reliance---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting Toka blows---Accused was arrested in the case on 30.04.2019 and during investigation he made disclosure on 05.05.2019 and in pursuance whereof got recovered cleaver knife/Toka from the residential room of his house---Recovery proceedings were witnessed by witnesses who furnished their impeccable details, giving rise to no doubt of any nature---Weapon of offence after its recovery was forwarded to Forensic Science Agency and through report it was reported to be stained with human blood---Recovery of cleaver knife was challenged on the solitary ground that it was effected without adhering to the provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C.---While embarking upon the arguments of defence, same were found to be contrary to the facts of the case and law on the subject---Since the recovery of cleaver knife was effected on the disclosure and pointation of the accused, thus was relevant under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Such recovery attains credence and admissibility if witnessed by two witnesses, not necessarily having abode in the same neighborhood from where it was effected---Wisdom behind acceptance of such recovery had its roots in the fact that it was discovered from a place within the exclusive knowledge of none other than the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- First Information Report lodged with promptitude---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting Toka blows---Record showed that the incident took place at 08:00 a.m. and immediately thereafter the victim was taken to DHQ Hospital in a precarious injured condition and reached there at 08:15 a.m.---Shortly thereafter, Police Official also arrived in Hospital and the detail of crime was furnished to him by complainant through oral statement recorded at 8:45 a.m.---Imparting of information of occurrence within 45-minutes unambiguously indicated about the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Registration of FIR with extreme promptitude and that too upon the statement of an eye-witness was sufficient to establish his presence at the place of homicide---In addition, Investigating Officer reached DHQ Hospital within 30-minutes and found both the eye-witnesses in attendance---Idea of procuring the presence of a false eye-witness in such short span of time borrowed no logic---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence--- Natural witness---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting Toka blows---While adjudging the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene, it was not a sheer coincidence but an outcome of their ordinary pursuit of business---Complainant and eye-witness used to supply chicken in vegetable market through a vehicle and at the eventful time they claimed their presence at the spot out of their normal routine---Both the eye-witnesses were cross-examined in that regard but they remained in unison with each other by deposing that it was their schedule to reach vegetable market in the early hours of morning---Though the defence made an attempt to prove that complainant had his abode in another District but it remained abortive---However, it was satisfactorily proved during trial that complainant along with his slain brother was residing in District "J"---Accused contended that the narrators of ocular account were chance witnesses and the tale of incident so put forth by them was suspect evidence but after perusing the record with due circumspection, Court had all the good reasons to differ with such submissions---There was no denial from the defence about the eye-witnesses as chicken supplier---As a necessary consequence, arrival of eye-witnesses at the crime scene was by no stretch an outcome of twist of fate so as to dub them as chance witnesses---Legally speaking, even the evidence of a passerby, who successfully explains his presence at the spot, could not be discarded by describing him a chance witness---Both the eye-witnesses provided the detail of incident with extreme unanimity and differed not even at the minutest level---No conflict was found from the deposition of both the eye-witnesses about routine of their business, arrival in the vegetable market, the time of unfortunate incident, the reason which formed basis of crime, the weapon used in the occurrence and the locales of injuries endured by the victim---Likewise, no anomaly was discernable from record regarding shifting of victim to hospital in injured condition, arrival of police at the hospital and recording of the statements of eye-witnesses---Though the deceased received seven injuries out of which five were serious in nature but still none of them was attributed to brother of the accused, who was stated to be present at the crime scene---On one hand the foregoing fact gave a clue that the eye-witnesses did not have any special reasons to falsely implicate the accused in the case and on the other hand it reflected positively upon the regard they had about the truth of their deposition---Had the witnesses any axe to grind against the family of accused, they would have attributed one or two injuries to brother of accused, who was not even summoned to face the trial---Defence though argued that deceased and complainant were sharing the common blood line but still the former made no effort to save his brother through an intervention and on that score questioned their presence, however, the Court was least convinced from such submission when seen in the context that accused was at the peak of aggression and had gone berserk while mounting the assault upon deceased as was evident from the nature and number of injuries inflicted by him---Intervention by the witnesses vividly would have made them vulnerable to the receipt of similar treatment, endangering even their own lives---Lastly non-citing of a witness from the vicinity of crime scene was also not a factor to disbelieve the prosecution case as a neutral person always opted not to poke his nose in the enmity of others and instead was reluctant to becoming a witness of crime---Thus, all the good reasons existed to hold that the depositions of eye-witnesses inspired confidence and their presence at the spot was proved beyond speck of any ambiguity--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS State Related witnesses---Scope---Mere relationship of a witness with the deceased cannot oust him from the Court so as to be rendered unworthy of credence---For holding an eye-witness as interested, the defence has to demonstrate that he is inimically placed against the accused, and that there is every likelihood of false implication for satisfying pre-existing grudge or vengeance. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Motive proved---Brutality of murder---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting Toka blows---Motive was described as delayed arrival of the deceased at his work place which irked the accused who went violent to the extent of taking the life of an innocent young boy aged 17-years---Weakness of motive or failure of prosecution to prove it, lost significance in a barbarous murder incident like the instant one and the convict deserved no leniency in the quantum of sentence---Weakness of motive or failure of prosecution to prove it could admittedly be made basis for having resort to alternate sentence of imprisonment for life provided in S. 302(b), P.P.C., but such rule was not inflexible and deviation could be made from it if the deceased was done to death with display of brutality---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAISAL vs State S — 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD