MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs State Ss — 2023 MLD 1490 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 SHAHZAD VS State Ss. 302, 380 & 411---Qatl-i-amd, theft in dwelling house, dishonestly receiving stolen property---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Call Data Record---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant after stealing away golden ear-rings and mobile phones---Record showed that the Trial Court had marked the Call Record Data consisting of eight pages received by Police Constable/witness through an e-mail---Call Detail Record did not contain the e-mail address of the sender or receiver, nor it contained the signatures of any representative of the service provider company from which the call details of the two mobile companies was secured---Thus, the Call Detail Record had not been proved on record by the law---Call Detail Record did not show in whose name the Mobile number stood registered---Call Detail Record relied upon by the prosecution though otherwise not proved by the law, also did not support the version of the prosecution that the complainant had seen some woman knocking at the door of the house of the complainant's mother---During cross-examination, Investigating Officer admitted that supplementary statement of complainant was recorded and in that supplementary statement there was no mention of any mobile phone, SIM number, or gold ornaments---Since the prosecution had failed to lead any evidence on record about the persons in whose names those two mobile numbers were registered and working, the court could neither guess nor presume that one of those mobile numbers belonged to the accused and deceased---Crucial evidence in the present case was the SIM of the deceased used by the accused in his mobile phone set---Complainant's statement was conspicuously silent about the SIM numbers and makes and models of the cell phones that were stolen after the incident---In the present case prosecution had placed on the record call details, which were marked---Prosecution's case was based on call details of the mobile phones but had failed to establish its case in that regard, as well---No official of the concerned mobile phone company was produced in the court, nor the call details of the mobile phones were proved on record---Prosecution also failed to prove in whose names the mobile numbers were issued---Prosecution had also failed to bring on record any link evidence, pointing out the accusing finger against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring at home charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs State Ss — 2023 MLD 1490 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD