Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI 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 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two and half hours in lodging FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that accused suspected quarrels and cruelty with his sister on the part of deceased and others, due to which he committed the occurrence---Record showed that the occurrence took place at 02:30 a.m. (night) in the area of a village which was at a distance of one kilometer only from the police station and was connected by mettalled road---Two eye-witnesses had allegedly seen the occurrence---After the commission of crime, said witnesses had also seen the accused running away from the spot---Complainant informed the police about the occurrence through the written application and formal FIR was chalked out at 05:00 a.m. the same day---Delay of two and half hours in filing FIR in the instant case, irrespective of the fact that the Police Station was situated only at the distance of one kilometer from the spot of the incident, created sufficient doubt about the genuineness of the FIR---No explanation was coming forward as to why the complainant had not informed the police about the incident soon after the incident---Inordinate delay of about two hours and thirty minutes from the time of the commission of the offence remained unexplained and rendered the whole of the prosecution version doubtful---Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Safe custody of crime empties not established---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Admittedly, the Investigating Officer, returned to the police station after conducting proceedings at the place of occurrence, and a search of the accused, and visiting the hospital---Prosecution evidence remained silent as to where five parcels of crime empties remained during the said period and in whose custody---Prosecution failed to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged parcels of crime empties seized from the place of occurrence were kept in safe custody---Report in question was of no help to the prosecution as there was nothing on record to prove that the recovery of five crime empties alleged to have been made by the members of the Forensic Science Agency Team, were the same which were recovered from the place of occurrence---Thus, there could be no dispute that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce members of the Forensic Science Agency Team who had collected the crime empties and prepared separate parcels in order to prove the chain of safe custody---Without such proof, report of Forensic Science Agency could not corroborate the case of prosecution---Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of twelve hours in conducting post-mortem---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---In the present case, the Investigating Officer deposed during cross-examination that they reached the spot at about 06:30 a.m.---If the Investigating Officer had reached the place of occurrence and prepared an inquest report, there was no reason for conducting the postmortem of the dead body of deceased with the delay of approximately twelve hours---More significantly, the inquest report did not bear any signatures of the witnesses---At the bottom of the page, the names of the prosecution witnesses were also not mentioned--- Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence doubtful---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the Medical Officer, who conducted postmortem examination upon the dead body of the deceased, had noted that the rigor mortis present on the dead body of the deceased---Mouth and eyes of the deceased were semi-open---Death had not taken place at the time given by the prosecution witnesses, nor witnesses were present at the spot, which also got support from the inquest report wherein the names of complainant and eye-witness were not mentioned---Said fact indicated that the incident did not occur as stated by the prosecution---All these factual circumstances led to the conclusion that relying upon the FIR in the instant case was unsafe---Other essential fact of the case were that the Inquest Report was prepared on 24:05:2018, but the preparation time was not mentioned therein--- Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Five crime empties collected from the place of occurrence by Investigating Officer were matched with the weapon recovered on the pointing of the accused resulting into a positive report of Forensic Science Agency---Investigating Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that Forensic Science Agency Team inspected the place of occurrence, collected five crime empties, made the same into parcels separately and handed over to him---Investigating Officer took the same into possession through recovery memo which was attested by the witnesses---Contrary to the deposition of Investigating Officer, the complainant deposed during examination-in-chief that Investigating Officer collected five crime empties from the place of occurrence, prepared the parcel of crime empties and took the same into possession through recovery memo, which was attested by the complainant and another witness---Eye-witness deposed in similar lines---As per the prosecution case, the accused was arrested on 28.05.2018, and the weapon, i.e., pistol was recovered on 30.05.2018 on his disclosure from his house---Per the prosecution case, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence after the occurrence---It was not the prosecution's case that he went inside the house, kept the pistol, and fled away---As per the admission of the Investigating Officer, at the time of the arrest of the accused from his house on 28.05.2018, he did not recover anything---Strangely, the weapon, which could not be retrieved on 28.05.2018, was recovered on 30.05.2018 after 02-days of his arrest from the accused's house---Furthermore the accused had ample opportunity to destroy the weapon from 24.05.2018 to 28.05.2018---Moreover, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that to facilitate the investigating agency, the accused would bring back the weapon, and he would conceal the same in his house, which the Investigating Officer could not recover at the time of his arrest---Prosecution evidence showed that a team consisting of the members of the Forensic Science Agency inspected the place of occurrence, collected five crime empties, made the same into parcels separately, and handed them over to the Investigating Officer---Members of the Forensic Science Agency Team were not officers covered by S. 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and thus, the positive report of Forensic Science Agency was not conclusive and reliable in the absence of the officers being examined in Court, who collected crime empties from the spot and prepared separate parcels to prove the fact that they collected crime empties from the place of occurrence and after that, they prepared parcels which were handed over to the Investigating Officer---Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI VS State S. 302(b)--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Conflict between the statements of material witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---In the present case, conflict between the statements of material witnesses were noticed regarding the length of time of stay of the Investigating Officer at the spot and the recording of statements of witnesses---Husband of the sister of accused/witness deposed that police stayed at the spot till 11:00/12:00 noon---Whereas, the complainant deposed during examination-in-chief that the Investigating Officer along with 3-4 other policemen, came to the place of occurrence and stayed there till 01:00/02:00 p.m.---Un-scaled site plan revealed that the accused fired at the deceased by standing at point "B" and crime empties were secured from the same point---In the un-scaled site plan, presence of witnesses was shown, but the cots of the prosecution witnesses were not revealed---Besides, the Investigating Officer had shown the direction of the foot side of the cot in different directions--- Appeal against the conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ARSHAD ALI vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 1437 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ