MUHAMMAD FAISAL vs State S — 2023 MLD 1298 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 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.

MUHAMMAD FAISAL vs State S — 2023 MLD 1298 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD