Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL 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 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvement made by eye-witness---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Eye-witness had dishonestly improved his statement and defence brought on the record improvements made by him during his examination-in-chief---Said witness during his cross-examination deposed that he mentioned in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., that the fire shot hit the deceased upon his knee of left leg---Confronted with his statement, wherein it was not so recorded---Said witness mentioned in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., that the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence while extending aerial fire shots---Confronted with his statement, wherein it was not so recorded---Said fact created doubt in the prosecution case as well as on the credibility and truthfulness of the statement of eye-witness---Relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was not safe---Circumstances established that the prosecution had become unable to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of 3.45/4.45 hours in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Matrimonial dispute was motive behind the occurrence---Record showed that the occurrence took place at 5.00/6.00 a.m. and matter was reported to the police through written application at 9.45 a.m. whereupon formal FIR was lodged at 10.10 a.m.---Distance between the place of occurrence and police station was six kilometres---From the depositions of complainant, eye-witness and Investigating Officer, it revealed that soon after the incident, the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence and the incident was reported by the complainant to him---Prosecution case was that incident took place at 5/6:00 a.m.---If the situation was same, then the time of reporting the incident to police was negated by the documentary evidence i.e. application for registration of case---Said application, revealed that at the bottom of said application "Police Karwai" was written by the Investigating Officer at 09:45 a.m. whereupon FIR was lodged at 10:10 a.m. on the same day---Prosecution could indicate reasons for the delay in reporting the incident to the police---Circumstances established that the prosecution had become unable to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Inquest report---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Column No.3 of the inquest report showed that the time of receiving information regarding death was mentioned as 08:00 a.m.---Entry of 08:00 a.m. in the column No.3 of inquest report was made later on with blue ball point---Nature of weapon used in the incident was also not mentioned in column No.12 of inquest report and it was mentioned "firearm weapon"---If it was so, then it was the Investigating Officer to explain by plausible evidence on record, as to how the inquest report was undertaken at 08:00 a.m. on a point of time, when the incident was not reported to the police---First circumstance, which raised doubt about the time of occurrence of death as claimed by the prosecution was that in the inquest report, in column No.3 regarding receiving information of death was written as 08:00 a.m. to the Investigating Officer, whereas as per prosecution version, deceased then injured was shifted to RHC soon after the incident and where from he was referred to Hospital and on reaching in emergency ward of Hospital, injured succumbed to the injuries---Thereafter, the incident was reported by the complainant at the place of occurrence at 09:45 a.m.---Entire prosecution case was silent on the point that when deceased then injured breathed his last and when and by whom the dead body of deceased was brought back from Hospital to the place of occurrence, whereas the Investigating Officer deposed that when he reached the place of occurrence after 30/45 minutes of the occurrence, the deceased had passed away---Circumstances established that the prosecution had become unable to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Time of death of deceased was doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---In terms of inquest report, if police received information about the death of deceased at 08:00 a.m., whereas the complainant, the eye-witness and the Investigating Officer deposed that after the occurrence within span of 30 to 45 minutes, police reached at the place of occurrence, then the time of death of deceased became doubtful---Said fact also threw doubt about the time when actually the incident took place and was reported to the police---Circumstances established that the prosecution had become unable to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses on the spot---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Complainant deposed that at about 05.00/06.00 a.m. she along with her husband/deceased and eye-witness were going to take their water turn---Record showed that the place of occurrence was at a distance of one and half acre away from the village---Eye-witnesses were bound to give credible explanation for being present at the place of occurrence---Record showed that there was conflict in between the statements of both prosecution witnesses i.e. the complainant and eye-witness---Said witnesses had not brought on the record certified copy of warabandi revealing that there was any warabandi fixed for the irrigation purpose---No FIR was actually registered at the time as alleged by the prosecution and after some consultation and deliberation it came into existence---Admittedly, the occurrence took place on thoroughfare and the witnesses were chance and interested witnesses, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence became doubtful---Circumstances established that the prosecution had become unable to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL VS State Ss. 302, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Post-mortem report---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by firing---Senior Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body deposed during his court statement that the duration between death and post-mortem was 11/12 hours---Post-mortem report revealed that the dead body was received in the dead house at 06.50 p.m. and complete documents from police were received at 06.55 p.m. and autopsy was conducted upon the dead body of deceased at 07.00 p.m.---Said fact out-rightly suggested that deceased took his last breathe between 7.00/8.00 a.m., whereas the prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant, eye-witness and Investigating Officer deposed that soon after the incident (5.00/6.00 a.m.), Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence within short span of time within 30/45 minutes---Said circumstances would go to suggest that the FIR was ante-dated---Circumstances established that the prosecution had become unable to prove the case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ