Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs State Ss

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 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six hours and thirty minutes in conducting postmortem examination---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Perusal of application for post-mortem examination revealed that same was forwarded to C.M.O. at 03:20 p.m. on 31.05.2018 whereas statement of Medical Officer reflected that dead body was received in the mortuary at 09:50 a.m. on 31.05.2018---Police papers were received in the mortuary on 31.05.2018 at 04:00 p.m. and post-mortem examination over dead body of the deceased was conducted at 04:20 p.m. on the same day---Medical Officer also categorically stated that due to non-production of relevant documents i.e. inquest report, application for autopsy and FIR, the postmortem could not be conducted---As per FIR, deceased of the case succumbed to the injuries at the spot but question arose that if case was registered at the claimed time i.e. 07:45 a.m., then why police papers were not dispatched with dead body which was received in the mortuary at 09:50 a.m.---Answer to such question was very simple that same were not prepared till then---Such sort of delay in conducting post-mortem examination dislodged promptness of recorded FIR and it reflected that none of the cited eye-witnesses was present at the time and place of occurrence and time had been consumed for procuring, inducing witnesses and after deliberation and consultation concocting story for the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Motive---Scope---When substantive piece of evidence in the form of ocular account has been disbelieved, then motive is of no help to the case of prosecution as the same loses its significance---Furthermore, motive is a double edged weapon and in peculiar facts of the case, can also be considered as a reason for roping the accused in the case. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in statements of witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Complainant claimed that though he was not eye-witness of the occurrence yet he was told about the occurrence by the witnesses---However, one of the eye-witnesses categorically stated that she did not tell the complainant about the occurrence---As per site plan when assailant made firearm shots at the deceased, distance between them was 5-feet---Meaning thereby that if length of arm of the assailant was subtracted, then there should be definitely blackening on the entry wounds received by the deceased but the Medical Officer had categorically stated that there was no blackening in the wounds---Though it was claim of the prosecution that cited eye-witness was also accompanying the deceased on the motorcycle but neither said witness disclosed any registration number, model, company, colour of said motorcycle nor produced the same during investigation/trial of the case---Said motorcycle of witness was not even shown in site plan---Perusal of Inquest Report reflected that neither the complainant nor cited eye-witnesses identified the dead body of the deceased of the case---Similarly, Inquest Report was neither attested by the complainant nor cited eye-witnesses rather same was attested by other witnesses---Thus, testimonies of the complainant and both the cited eye-witnesses were neither confidence inspiring nor trustworthy, hence, could not be relied in a case of capital punishment---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Witness--- Chance witness--- Scope--- Chance witness has to plausibly/reasonably explain and prove reason of his presence at the time and place of occurrence. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the sister and son-in-law of the deceased had furnished ocular account of the incident---Admittedly, both said eye-witnesses were not residents of the place of occurrence, so, they were chance witnesses---Though in the application for registration of case it was recorded by the complainant that on the day of occurrence of the case, both the eye-witnesses were accompanying deceased for going to Court with respect to date of hearing of the case because said deceased was nominated in a criminal case---Whereas both the said witnesses had to meet accused arrested in said case and that's why they were coming with deceased---However, it was mandatory for the prosecution to prove that said criminal case was pending before the Court and on that day, date of hearing was fixed in said case but attested copy of order sheet, cause list or any other document to prove/substantiate said contention/version was not produced during trial of the case---Hence, cause claimed by the prosecution with respect to eye-witnesses accompanying the deceased to Court in connection with date of hearing in a case, could not be established, therefore, their testimonies being suspect evidence could not be believed--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State S. 154---First Information Report---Delay in lodging FIR---Effect---First Information Report lays foundation of the criminal case and when it has not been promptly recorded rather with delay and no reasonable explanation regarding its delayed recording has come on the record, then it is fatal for the case of prosecution. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Dishonest improvements by witness--- Scope--- Witness who introduces dishonest improvements for strengthening the case, can not be relied upon. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence is mere supportive type of evidence, it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury---Thus, medical evidence is of no help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Mouth and eyes of the deceased partially open---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Both the eye-witnesses stated that assailants made 4/5 fire shots at the deceased of the case but they did not utter even a single word regarding locale of receipt of injuries---Perusal of column No. 8 of the inquest report reflected that eyes and mouth of the deceased were found as semi opened---Said state of affairs raised eyebrows regarding presence of said eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence particularly when they both were closely related to the deceased---Had they been present at the place of occurrence, at the relevant time, then they would have definitely closed the eyes and mouth of the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Since no locale of injuries was mentioned in the ocular account therefore, medical evidence could not give any confirmation to said extent---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Perusal of application for registration of case and FIR revealed that both said documents did not contain receipt of application for registration of case by the police at the spot and then transmitting the same to the police station for registration of case--- Furthermore, A.S.I., who scribed FIR, categorically stated that on 31.05.2018, he was posted as A.S.I./Duty Officer at the police station and complainant submitted application before him and on the basis of the same, he drafted FIR---Said witness further stated that complainant reached at police station at about 07:30 a.m. and at that time he was all alone---Both such stances were contradictory and the mystery that when and where application was moved by the complainant for registration of case to the police either at the place of occurrence or at the police station, could not be resolved which raised question marks in that regard---Moreover, it was crystal clear that case was not registered at the stated time rather with much delay, therefore, neither any sanctity nor evidentiary value could be attached to said FIR and same 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 any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of pistol from accused and empties from the spot---Inconsequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---Record showed that pistol was recovered from the accused---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, four empties/cartridge cases secured from the place of occurrence, were not found as having been fired from said pistol---Thus, said recovery was inconsequential and of no help to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of motorcycle from the spot---Inconsequential---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother-in-law of the complainant by firing---So far as recovery of motorcycle taken into possession by the Investigating Officer through recovery memo at the alleged place pointing out of co-accused and statedly used in the occurrence, was concerned, suffice to say that since any model, company, number or colour of the motorbike was not given in the FIR, therefore, same 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 any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ