Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL 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 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---As far as motive was concerned, it was notable that in case of murder of a person by his trusted/closely related person, if any cause of murder was alleged/claimed by the prosecution, same attained vital importance---In the present case, complainant categorically claimed that due to institution of suit for recovery of maintenance allowance in Family Court by the deceased lady, which was decreed in her favour, accused bore a grudge and committed her murder---However, during cross-examination, it came out from the mouth of the complainant that suit for recovery of maintenance allowance was decreed on condition of rehabilitation of his deceased sister with accused---Moreover, it was not mentioned in the statement and FIR that after decree of the suit, whether deceased went to the house of the accused or was residing with him but he did not pay the maintenance allowance and she filed petition for execution of the decree---Without such facts there was no cause of annoyance/grudge for the accused to commit murder of the deceased---Therefore, motive had rightly not been believed by the Trial Court---Even otherwise, when substantive piece of evidence in the form of ocular account had been disbelieved, then motive was of no help to the case of prosecution as the same lost its efficacy---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---No justification for the presence of eye-witness at the spot---Chance witness---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---So far as eye-witness was concerned, he was admittedly not resident of the place of occurrence rather lived 5/6 kms. away from the place of occurrence---Admittedly, said witness did not have any business or office in the area of place of occurrence during the relevant time---So, said eye-witness was a chance witness and no explanation/plausible reason regarding his presence at the time and place of occurrence was mentioned in his statement and FIR---Said witness tried to introduce reason of his presence at the spot as settling a family dispute between deceased and accused and for such purpose three other persons including a neighbor were allegedly present there---Said neighbor did not state such fact---Therefore, testimony of said witness, who was a chance witness, was suspect evidence and could not be accepted without pinch of salt---Furthermore, locale of receipt of firearm shots by deceased i.e. in front of abdomen and left rib as narrated by eyewitness, was not confirmed by medical evidence and entry wounds at right renal area and on breast of the deceased were not mentioned by said eye-witness, hence his version was also not supported/confirmed by medical evidence stricto sensu--- So, prosecution's ocular account was neither trustworthy nor confidence inspiring, hence not reliable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Dishonest improvements--- Scope--- Witness, who introduced dishonest improvements for strengthening the case, could not be relied upon. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---Though, complainant claimed himself as resident of house of occurrence as well as an eye-witness, yet close scrutiny of the record revealed that complainant in his statement and also during statement before the Court stated that accused fired consecutive shots with pistol upon his sister, which hit her on the bicep of left arm, front side of abdomen, left rib and right bicep but as per Post-mortem Examination Report, no entry wound on front of abdomen and no entry wound on left rib of the deceased was found---If eye-witnesses had themselves opted to narrate exact locale of the entry wounds in their statements and same was not confirmed by medical evidence, then no one else but prosecution had to suffer---So, ocular version deposed by complainant had not been supported/confirmed in stricto sensu by medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Absconsion of the accused---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---So far as abscondance of the accused was concerned, suffice to say that it had to be proved like any other fact---However, in the present case, warrant of arrest revealed that it was not issued to any Police Officer or public servant for execution rather through such warrant accused 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, therefore, both warrant and proclamation were defective, as mandatory requirements in the same had not been fulfilled and prosecution could not prove this limb of its case---Abscondance was not proof of the charge---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of pistol from the possession of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---Record showed that a pistol was recovered from the accused---As per report of Forensic Science Agency, said recovered pistol was not functional---In absence of recovery of any empty from the place of occurrence, said recovery was inconsequential and could not provide any corroboration to the case of prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions and lapses in evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---As per prosecution case, occurrence took place at 03.00 p.m. on 07.07.2009 in the house of complainant, which was at a distance of1/2 kilometer from the Police Station---Police reached at the place of occurrence and complainant recorded his statement regarding the occurrence at 04.00 p.m. to SI there, which was sent to the Police Station and FIR was recorded---However, SI while recording his statement in the Court clearly stated that he recorded statement of the complainant when he was on patrol duty and thereafter reached at the place of occurrence---So, place of recording statement of complainant for registration of case was under a cloud---In the statement of complainant and FIR, it was mentioned that deceased of the case received firearm shots when she was taking meal/food while sitting on the cot in upper portion of the house and it was not mentioned with exactness that either she was available in the room, veranda or courtyard of said portion of the house---Similarly, it was mentioned in statement that after receiving firearm shots, deceased fell but it was not mentioned that she fell on ground---In Column No.24 of the Inquest Report, it was clearly shown that dead body was found on cot but neither said cot nor any blood of the deceased from said cot was taken into possession during investigation of the case rather blood was statedly secured from the floor---Case of prosecution was that deceased was taking meal/food but neither any residue of food nor any utensil was secured during investigation of the case and even same was not mentioned as available, near or around the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence in Columns Nos.22 and 23 of the Inquest Report---Though it was alleged that deceased lady received various firearm shots and as per Post-mortem Examination Report, there were entry and exit wounds yet no empty shell or foreign metallic body fired from any bullet was found from the spot---Any marks of hitting or striking of any such foreign metallic body at cot, floor, wall or roof of the house, were also not found and in that regard in the site plans of the place of occurrence and Columns Nos. 22 and 23 of the Inquest Report, therefore, exact place of occurrence, was also under a cloud---Last worn clothes of the deceased were neither blood stained nor had holes of firearm shots---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence contradicting claimed time of death---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of the complainant by firing---Post-mortem report of the deceased and statement of Medical Officer clearly showed that death of the deceased was immediate after receipt of injuries hence it was a sudden death, therefore, according to established principles of Medical jurisprudence, onset of rigor mortis was later and its duration was longer---Thus, the opinion given by the Medical Officer regarding time between death and post-mortem as five to six hours was mere ipse dixit and not according to settled principles of Medical jurisprudence on the subject---Thus, when Medical Officer had himself observed that rigor mortis was fully developed, then by no stretch of imagination, time between death and post-mortem of the deceased person could be considered as less than twelve hours---Therefore, medical evidence had negated that occurrence took place at the stated/alleged time and when exact time of occurrence had not been proved by the prosecution, then entire superstructure of the case of prosecution fell---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL VS State Witness---Reliability---Witness who denied admitted facts could not be termed as reliable witness.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 1834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ