Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI vs State Ss

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 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements made by the witnesses---Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, father, brother and uncle of the complainant were hit and died while three other persons sustained injuries---In the present case, in order to bring their evidence in line with the medical evidence, the complainant and the witnesses while filing the private complaint and appearing before the Trial Court made dishonest improvements in their statements and changed the roles and seats of injuries attributed to both the accused---Said witnesses were confronted with their previous statements and dishonest improvements made by them were duly brought on the record---It was evident from the perusal of evidence that the prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements in their statements while appearing in the witness box in order to bring their statements in line with the medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, father, brother and uncle of the complainant were hit and died while three other persons sustained injuries---Record showed that general allegation in respect of the motive part of the prosecution case was leveled by the prosecution witnesses against the accused persons and their acquitted co-accused wherein they stated that few days earlier to the occurrence a quarrel took place between the complainant and the accused persons---Said motive was also alleged against the acquitted co-accused---No specific date, time and place of the quarrel of motive part of the occurrence had been mentioned by any prosecution witness---Moreover, the Trial Court had disbelieved the prosecution evidence qua the motive due to cogent reasons and as such there was no independent corroboration of the prosecution case against the accused with respect to the motive---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Weapons of offence recovered on the pointation of the accused---Reliance---Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, father, brother and uncle of the complainant were hit and died while three other persons sustained injuries---Prosecution alleged that no weapon was recovered from the possession of the acquitted co-accused, whereas rifles were recovered from both the present accused and as such case of the present accused was distinguishable from the case of acquitted co-accused---As per Forensic Science Agency Report the empties recovered from the spot did not match with the rifle recovered on the pointation of accused---Although according to Forensic Science Agency Report two empties recovered from the spot matched with the rifle recovered from the possession of accused but the rifle was recovered from the possession of accused on 23.06.2013 whereas the empties were deposited in the office of Forensic Science Agency on 10.07.2013, which meant that the empties and rifle were kept together at police station, therefore, it was not safe to rely upon the said piece of evidence of the prosecution---Under the said circumstances, there was no independent corroboration of the prosecution case through the said alleged recoveries of weapons of offence on the pointation of the accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Co-accused acquitted on the basis of same evidence on which accused convicted---Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, father, brother and uncle of the complainant were hit and died while three other persons sustained injuries---Record showed that the complainant party implicated as many as eleven (11) accused persons in this case and out of the said eleven (11) accused, two co-accused died during the pendency of the trial before the Trial Court, whereas the remaining seven (07) accused had already been acquitted by the Trial Court---Prosecution had conceded that no appeal against the acquittal of seven accused had been filed either by the State or by the complainant---In the given circumstances, it was to be determined by the Court as to whether the same prosecution evidence, which had been disbelieved against the co-accused could be believed against the present accused and as to whether there was any independent corroboration of the prosecution evidence against the present accused---In such respect, case of one of the co-accused (since acquitted) was at par with the case of both the present accused because the said co-accused was assigned the role of making first fire shot, which landed on the back side of the chest near neck of deceased/uncle of complainant and in the post mortem report the said injury i.e. injury No.1 was available on the back side of the chest near neck of deceased---Said co-accused was also assigned the role of making second fire shot, which landed on the left leg and knees of injured and according to the medical evidence the said injury was also available as injury No.1 on the left leg of injured but the said co-accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court, which acquittal had attained finality---Although prosecution tried to distinguish the case of both the present accused with the case of acquitted co-accused on the ground that the said co-accused was declared innocent during the police investigation whereas the present accused had been found guilty---However, police opinion after recording of evidence by the Trial Court became irrelevant and the present accused could not be convicted and sentenced merely on the basis of said opinion in absence of any other independent corroborative piece of evidence---As the prosecution evidence had already been disbelieved against seven acquitted co-accused, therefore the same evidence could not be believed against the present accused without independent corroboration, which was very much lacking in the present case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI VS State Injured witness---Scope---Mere injuries on the bodies of the prosecution witnesses do not mean that they are stating the whole truth and their evidence is to be relied upon or discarded while keeping in view the other facts and circumstances of a particular case. Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradiction---Accused were charged that they along with their co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which, father, brother and uncle of the complainant were hit and died while three other persons sustained injuries---Ocular account of the prosecution was furnished by complainant and two other witnesses---There was conflict between the ocular account as set forth in the FIR and statements of the said witnesses recorded by the police and medical evidence brought on the record by the prosecution through Medical Officers---According to the contents of the FIR accused made a fire shot with his 44 bore rifle, which landed on the right side of the head of brother of complainant/deceased and made its exit from the other side but according to the evidence of Medical Officer in post mortem report injury No.2 on the right side of the head was an exit wound whereas injury No.1, which was an entry wound, was on the left side of head of deceased---Other accused was assigned the role of making first fire shot which landed on the right side of the chest of deceased/father of complainant and thereafter he made second fire shot, which landed near the right armpit of the said deceased---Although, there was an entry wound on the right side of the chest of deceased i.e. injury No.3 but injury under the right armpit of the deceased i.e. injury No.6 was an exit wound and as such there was also conflict between the ocular account of the prosecution as mentioned in the FIR, in the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the police and in the medical evidence, which had created doubt in the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MURTAZA alias MURTI vs State Ss — 2023 MLD 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD