Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR vs State Witness

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 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Witness---Injured witness---Scope---Mere presence of injury on the person of prosecution witness does not stamp him to be a truthful witness. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Proclamation of accused---Arrest warrant---Mandatory pre-requisites not fulfilled---Scope---Accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and four were injured---Proper issuance of warrant of arrest and proper report on the same had to be proved by the prosecution but in the case prosecution got exhibited warrant of arrest of accused---However, perusal of the same revealed that it was not issued to any Police Officer for execution rather through that warrant police was asked to arrest accused---Similarly, it had not been mentioned in the proclamation that in how much period or till which date, accused had to surrender---Any detail of house number, street number, specific name of mohallah in the village or any other detail showing abuttals of house of accused was not available in the report of process server on the warrant as well as report on proclamation---In such state of affairs, both warrant and proclamation were defective and mandatory requirements for the same had not been fulfilled---Resultantly, same were of no avail and could not provide any corroboration to the case of prosecution---Even otherwise, abscondance was not proof of the charge---Furthermore, when ocular account to the extent of accused had been disbelieved, then abscondance was of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvements by complainant and injured witness---Scope---Accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and four were injured---Ocular account produced in the case by the complainant party comprised of statements of complainant and two injured witnesses---As per application for registration of case and FIR, accused fired with Kalashnikov which hit at left side of flank of deceased of the case---As per postmortem examination report, no firearm injury was found at left flank of deceased---However, complainant through complaint introduced dishonest improvement by changing locale of injury caused by the accused from left side of flank to different parts of body of deceased---Similarly, injured witness while appearing before the court as witness also introduced dishonest improvement---Other injured witness in his statement recorded before the Court also introduced dishonest improvement---So it was crystal clear that complainant as well as eye-witnesses introduced same dishonest improvements in order to bring ocular account in line with medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Scope---Accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and four were injured---As per ocular version, occurrence took place during night time at 8:20 p.m.---Occurrence was witnessed by the complainant and other witnesses in the light of electric bulb installed in the street and lights of the vehicle of the complainant---Neither said electric bulb nor said car was taken into possession during investigation---Thus, any source of identification of the assailants also could not be established by the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Dishonest improvement---Scope---If prosecution witness including injured witness introduces dishonest improvement in order to bring ocular account in line with medical evidence, then said witnesses are not reliable and truthful; their testimony is neither confidence inspiring nor believable. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is a supportive evidence and not corroborative piece of evidence. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon---Inconsequential forensic report---Accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and four were injured---Record showed that a Kalashnikov was recovered from the accused---However, suffice it to say that as per report of Forensic Science Agency produced by prosecution, after comparison, it was found that though said weapon was found to be in mechanical operating condition yet empties were found as not fired from the same---Thus, said recovery had become inconsequential because mere report regarding working condition of weapon of offence was of no avail to the case of prosecution---Thus, recovery could not provide any corroboration to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Motive---Scope---If substantive piece of evidence in the form of ocular account has been disbelieved to the extent of accused, then motive is of no help to the case of prosecution which is even otherwise a double edged weapon and can also be considered as reason for false implication. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of more than six hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and four were injured---Occurrence took place on 10.03.2017 at 08.20 p.m. and FIR was recorded on the written application of complainant at 02.45 a.m. on 11.03.2017---Injured persons were brought to DHQ Hospital for treatment at different timings between 08.50 p.m. and 09.20 p.m.---Medical Officer who conducted Medico-Legal examination of injured categorically stated on oath in his statement recorded during trial of the case that injured was brought by same Police Constable---Said portions of statement of Medical Officer were not challenged by the State or complainant and he was not re-examined on the subject, meaning thereby that police was in contact with complainant party as a Police Constable of the concerned Police Station brought injured persons in hospital at 08.50 p.m. and 09.00 p.m. respectively---Now question arose that if it was so then why FIR regarding the occurrence was not recorded just after the occurrence or Medico-legal examination of injured persons and why FIR was recorded with delay of more than six hours---No explanation whatsoever for such delay was available on record---Furthermore, dead body of deceased was also taken to said hospital by a Police Constable for post mortem examination---As per postmortem report of deceased, documents for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased were received by the Medical Officer from police at 06.00 a.m. on 11.03.2017 and postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was conducted at 06.15 a.m. on 11.03.2017---Said state of affairs reflected that FIR was not recorded even at 02.45 am, as claimed by the prosecution, rather only FIR number was obtained---Time was consumed in deliberation, consultation and concocting/fabricating story for the prosecution and thereafter FIR was chalked out with delay---Thus, it had been crystal clear that FIR in the case was recorded with delay after deliberation, consultation, inducement, procurement and concoction, therefore, neither any sanctity nor evidentiary value could be attached to the same and it could not provide any corroboration to the case of prosecution against the accused rather it had lost its efficacy and smashed the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR VS State Ss. 302(b), 324, 109, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Suppression of facts---Effect---Accused party made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died and four were injured---Record showed that one Mr. "I" also received firearm injury during the occurrence and died subsequently but his injury was not explained rather suppressed by the complainant party in the application for registration of FIR as well as in the complaint---However, complainant admitted said fact in his statement recorded before the Court---Both the injured persons also deposed in their statements before the Court about the said factum of injury on the person of Mr. "I" during the occurrence---If injuries received by any person were suppressed or not explained by the prosecution, then the prosecution case lacked proof beyond doubt---In such situation, the ocular account had not been found as reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring, hence discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABU BAKAR vs State Witness — 2023 PCrLJ 1235 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ