Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF vs State S

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 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence ran contrary to the prosecution's case as according to the written application for registration of FIR submitted by complainant, his deceased son received two injuries at right thigh, two injuries at his chest and one injury at the abdomen and similarly three injuries on back---However, no injury was found existent at abdomen whereas injuries on chest as well as one injury on right thigh were exit wounds and said fact had been described by the Medical Officer---In that way, there was a material contradiction between the statements of the eye-witnesses and medical evidence---Thus, it was not safe to rely upon the statements of the eye-witnesses, in the peculiar circumstances of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Conspiracy made by accused for committing the offence---Not proved---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---According to the statement of complainant, his brother, his wife and his nephew had gone to another city to the house of accused party to offer condolence on the death of son of accused, where they heard that co-accused, mother of the accused (since acquitted) asked her sons that complainant was not vacating their house and they should kill his son---Other eye-witness had stated in his examination-in-chief that one day prior to the occurrence, brother of complainant and other went to the house of accused party to offer "Fateh" there and heard the conspiracy hatched by the accused persons---Noteworthy, that when the complainant's wife as well as other close relatives had already come to know regarding said conspiracy, why they had not disclosed the said fact to the complainant and the deceased especially when they had returned to their homes one day prior to the occurrence---Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that if a son of a person had died one day before, he would indulge in such like heinous crime---Moreover, when the dispute between the accused and complainant party already existed then there was no occasion for the complainant party to visit the house of the accused situated in another city for condolence upon the demise of his son---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Weapon of offence recovered on the disclosure and pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that a pistol .30 bore was recovered on the disclosure and pointation of the accused from his residential house---However, the said recovery being purely corroboratory in nature could not alone be considered to sustain conviction on a capital charge---Noticeable that while conducting the recovery proceedings no independent witness of the vicinity was associated by the Investigating Officer during the recovery proceedings, which fact made such recovery doubtful in nature---Even otherwise, the report of the Forensic Science Agency was only to the extent of its being in mechanical operating condition---In these circumstances of the case, the said recovery of pistol .30 bore was inconsequential and not helpful to the prosecution against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was a dispute of a house---Record showed that the motive alleged by the prosecution had already been disbelieved by the Trial Court---Even otherwise, it was an oral assertion of the complainant and no material evidence in the shape of ocular or documentary was produced to substantiate the motive alleged by the prosecution---Although, the prosecution was not under obligation to establish a motive in every murder case, however if prosecution set up a motive and failed to prove it, then, it was the prosecution who had to suffer and not the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot at the relevant time---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was a dispute of a house---Complainant/father of the deceased and his paternal uncle furnished the ocular account of the occurrence---Presence of the said eye-witnesses at the spot at the relevant time was not natural---However, it was mandatory for the said eye-witnesses to justify their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time through some cogent reason but the said witnesses had failed to give any plausible reasoning qua their presence at place of occurrence at the relevant time, thus, they were chance witnesses---According to the statements of both the eye-witnesses they were not residents of the vicinity where the occurrence took place---Complainant during his examination-in-chief stated that he along with his family had vacated the house of his in-laws two months prior to the occurrence---When complainant had already vacated the house of his in-laws two months prior to the occurrence then there was no need to go to the same house on fateful day---In that way, there was a contradictory stance of complainant qua visiting the house in dispute---Moreso, it was also evident from the statement of complainant that an FIR for murderous assault was lodged against him and he left his permanent abode and shifted in the house of his in-laws in the year 2009 due to his nomination in the said murder case---Complainant further stated in his examination-in-chief that two months before the alleged occurrence, he vacated the house of his in-laws at the asking of acquitted co-accused and went to his village, then question was as to what was the reason for the complainant to go to the house of the accused party---In the eventuality of said facts, the eye-witnesses could not justify any reason for their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time---Said witnesses were, therefore, chance witnesses and as such their evidence was also not free from doubt---As per prosecution case, the accused along with his co-accused had made repeated fire shots at the body of deceased---Complainant and other eye-witness did not receive even a single scratch---Said witnesses were closely related to the deceased, they were at the mercy of the accused and his co-accused, then why they were let off by the accused and his co-accused to become a witness against them during trial---Witnesses of ocular account were not witnesses of inquest report and postmortem report pertaining to deceased---If eye-witnesses were present at the scene of the occurrence at the relevant time, they must have been the witnesses of inquest report---Similarly, said witnesses should have escorted the dead body to the hospital being the close relatives and their names should have been incorporated in the post mortem report in the column of identification of the dead body---Said eye-witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State absconsion---Scope---absconsion alone is not sufficient to record conviction on a capital charge and it can be used only as a corroboratory and confirmatory in support of ocular account---absconsion of the accused may be relevant qua the guilt or innocence of accused, which is to be decided keeping in view overall facts of the case. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---In the event of a doubt, the benefit must be given to the accused not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case NASIR ALI RAJA alias ASIF vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ