ALLAH DITTA vs State Ss — 2023 MLD 899 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.

ALLAH DITTA VS State Ss. 302, 365, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Motive behind the occurrence was a dispute between relatives---Ocular account of the case revolved around the testimony of complainant, wife of deceased and an eye-witness---Eye-witness had been proved to be a chance witness despite his best efforts to claim otherwise---Said eye-witness in the very first line of cross-examination admitted that he was the resident of a place which was at distance of about 10/15 kilometers from venue of crime---Although, said witness stated that he came one day earlier in the village to see his relatives/complainant etc. but he completely failed to show any strong reason which might have convinced the Court that on the day of occurrence he was present at venue of crime---Relatives of said witness might have been at venue of crime but that fact alone could not be considered as a valid and good reason given he was a witness in the case of capital charge---Said witness was running the shop in his village, so keeping in view nature of his work there was no justification for him to be present at crime scene---Dishonesty of said witness was evident from his statement that despite the fact he was resident of other place which he admitted in cross-examination, he gave his address in his particulars as of venue of crime---Same position was with reference to complainant who although was the resident of venue of crime but still had a challenge to establish his presence there---Admittedly, complainant was driver by profession and for the last 40 years he was working with an employer who was the resident of a place at a distance of 2.5 Kilometers---Complainant admitted in cross-examination that he used to reside at the Dera of his employer for the last about 40 years---Complainant never claimed that he used to return to his house every day---If it was believed that complainant had to be present in the house in evening as claimed by widow of deceased, it meant that in the morning he was supposed to go at the place of his duty---Considering that fact it could be easily understood that to work at the land was not his routine so he was under obligation to offer an acceptable reason for his presence in the field on the day of occurrence but the position was otherwise---Reverting to the statement of widow of deceased, it was proved that she at the most was a witness of abduction of her husband because thereafter she was sent to her home---Said witness, therefore, did not witness that how and in what manner subsequent to abduction deceased was done to death by the assailants---Said fact that she went to her house after abduction was conceded by all the private witnesses of the case---Statement of widow of deceased was also contradicted by the first Investigating Officer, when she stated that her statement was recorded in police station but it was denied by the Investigating Officer---Occurrence took place at 08:20 am and complaint was recorded by Police Officer at 09:00 am who before completion of said document had prepared the application for post mortem examination and inquest report, as evident from his endorsement and sent the dead body to the hospital through Police Constable---Hospital was not at a considerable distance as according to Police Constable he arrived there at about 11:00 a.m. but that position was seriously in conflict with the statement of Medical Officer who in his examination-in-chief categorically said that dead body was received in hospital at 01:30 p.m. and he conducted the autopsy at 02:20 p.m.---Said important fact of the case had confirmed the opinion of the Court that the eye-witnesses were not present at crime scene---Said fact, therefore further established that even the complaint was not recorded at the given time, which finally indicated some foul play in prosecution's case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

ALLAH DITTA vs State Ss — 2023 MLD 899 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD