Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs State Ocular evi

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 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD VS State Ocular evidence--- Scope--- Ocular evidence is the most important/significant pillar of prosecution's case which has to be proved without any shadow of doubt because its trustworthiness/ accuracy/purity/credibility and it being confidence inspiring is enough to award conviction. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129, Illustration (g)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding of evidence---Presumption---Motive not proved---Effect---Corroborative evidence, reliance upon---Principle---Statement of accused---Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court for committing Qatl-i-amd---One accused was sentenced to death while remaining were sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Best evidence could come either from injured widow of deceased or from Head of Punchayat but such evidence was withheld---Widow of deceased got herself medically examined, her MLR was exhibited and she got recorded her statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Injured widow was the star/direct witness who was not produced before Trial Court, leading to adverse inference against prosecution---When ocular evidence was unreliable, the strongest corroborative evidence could not cure such deficiency/lacking---When direct evidence was unacceptable, the corroborative evidence would become worthless---Prosecution evidence was not free from doubt therefore, defence version taken by accused in their statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C., was to be believed in total---Alleged recoveries of Churras (daggers) from accused persons were inconsequential---Presence of eye-witnesses was not found free from doubt and was not confidence inspiring---Benefit of doubts would go to accused as a matter of right and not as a grace and in granting such benefit, single circumstance was sufficient---High Court set aside conviction and sentences awarded to accused persons, as prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt and accused persons were acquitted of the charges--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD VS State Motive---Effect---If motive is not proved, then ocular evidence is required to be evaluated with great caution.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs State Ocular evidence — 2023 PCrLJ 1054 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ