Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH 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 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 376---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant and then murdering her by strangulation---In complaint and FIR the complainant alleged that the motive behind the occurrence was that he had refused to marry his elder daughter to accused who was alleged to have abetted the occurrence---However, witness of extra-judicial confession in his statement before the Trial Court alleged that abettor suspected that the complainant had illicit relations with his wife---Although said witness stated that this was an "additional reason" behind the occurrence, one could not gainsay that the prosecution was wavery about the motive and during the trial it did not produce any independent witness to prove any of those that it suggested---Even Investigating Officer did not collect any evidence in thatregard when he investigated the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State Extra-judicial confession---Scope---Extra-judicial confession must be received with utmost caution for the reason that it could be procured effortlessly and could be easily concocted. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 376---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant and then murdering her by strangulation---Complainant, who was father of the deceased, was admittedly not eye-witness of the occurrence---Complainant stated that his daughter left the house on 30.04.2010 to play in the street and went missing and on the following day her dead body was found lying on a branch of tree in the graveyard---However, complainant suspected that three persons were involved in the offence---On 12.05.2010, complainant made a supplementary statement stating that he had probed into the matter himself and had found that three other persons including one of the earlier suspects had actually committed the murder of his daughter while another person along with his wife carried her body to the graveyard and disposed it of---Then, on 17.05.2010, complainant made another statement in which he exonerated two persons---Apart from the desire of complainant to enrope maximum number of people from the opposite side in the case, it appeared from his deposition recorded during the trial that the said statements were based on the findings of a sniffer dog and a khoji (tracker) that he had privately arranged---Without commenting on the reliability and admissibility of such alleged findings, the prosecution did not rely on them and neither examined the dog trainer nor the tracker at the trial---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Your Search returned total 35531 records from 17950 - 18000 Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State Circumstantial evidence---Scope---In case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to show that different pieces of evidence brought on the record are inter-linked so as to make a single chain whose one end touched the dead person and the other clenched the neck of the accused---Evidence must be of a quality to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused---Any missing link in the chain would destroy the entire prosecution case. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 376---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Extra-judicial confession---Scope---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant and then murdering her by strangulation---Record showed that two prosecution witnesses deposed that allegedly three accused persons made extra-judicial confession---One of the witnesses of extra-judicial confession deposed that on 13.5.2010 he was present at his Dera with other witness when the said accused approached them and took them aside and separately requested for their help to seek pardon from the complainant---First of all allegedly Mr. "M" admitted that Mr. "H" and Mr. "J" raped deceased girl and then killed her because they feared police would arrest them---Said accused offered to give the hand of his daughter to the son of the complainant---After him Mr. "H" and Mr. "J" individually made alleged confessions about their guilt and added that they had committed the offence on the abetment of Mr. "I"---Other witness deposed on the same line---Said witnesses were the real brothers of complainant---Prosecution had not brought any material on the record to show that Mr. "H", Mr. "J" or Mr. "M" had any reason to make confession before them---More importantly, the witnesses claimed that when the accused came to their Dera they were alone and were not accompanied by any respectable of the locality or a common friend---Keeping in view the gravity of the charge it was not possible for them to approach the said witnesses directly particularly when the occurrence was fresh and tempers were high---In their cross-examination said witnesses stated that 8/9 of their relatives were present outside the Dera---Intriguingly, said persons did not react on seeing them, even their own conduct was unnatural---In such state of affairs, prosecution evidence of extra-judicial confession was not reliable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State S. 161---Delay in recording the statement of witness---Effect---Where the statement of a witness was recorded with delay without any cogent reason it impinged its credibility. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 376---Qatl-i-amd, rape---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant and then murdering her by strangulation---Evidence of the last seen furnished by a witness was the cornerstone of the prosecution case---Said witness deposed that on 30.4.2010 at about 6:00/7:00 p.m. he was returning from the house of his mother-in-law to his own house when he saw three accused persons including a lady in the street---Said witness subsequently learnt that daughter of the complainant was raped and murdered---Perusal of the record showed that said witness joined the investigation and made a statement to that effect on 14.5.2010---Said witness was the maternal cousin of the complainant yet he did not inform him about the rape and murder and kept mum for 14 long days---During his cross-examination the witness attempted to explain that delay by taking the plea that he went to place "L" on 30.4.2010 and came back on 12.5.2010, however said plea did not help him---Said witness admitted that his wife informed him about the incident on 01.5.2010---Keeping in view close relationship of said witness with the complainant, it was unnatural for him not to contact the complainant or the police immediately---More importantly, even if said witness returned on 12.5.2010, there was no explanation why he delayed joining the investigation till 14.5.2010---Thus, the testimony of said witness lacked credibility---In addition to that, the testimony of said witness was in direct conflict with that of other witness who deposed that he had informed him about the murder and rape on the very day of occurrence---Said fact also contradicted claim of witness of last seen evidence that he went to place "L"---Another witness deposed that on the fateful day when he got up for his Fajar prayer he had seen two accused persons including a female passing in front of his house carrying a sack and subsequently discovered that the said sack contained the corpse of deceased and they dropped it in the graveyard---Testimony of said witness too did not inspire confidence---First, statement of said witness was based on conjectures and surmises---Said witness did not witness the accused disposing of the corpse as aforesaid---Secondly, the alleged sack was not recovered during investigation---Thirdly, the dead body of deceased was found lying on a branch of a tree in the graveyard---Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that two accused persons would take it out from the sack and then put it there---Fourthly, accused were the parents of other accused persons while female accused was the sister of another accused---However, it rather seemed preposterous that they would allow them to ravish and murder the girl and then take the body themselves to the graveyard to dispose it of---Lastly, the statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., of a witness was recorded by the Investigation Officer with a delay on 14.5.2010---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case HASWAR SHAH vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 850 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ