Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED 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 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged that he along with an unknown accused committed murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---As per prosecution case, the accused had made repeated fire shots at the body of the deceased---Complainant and other eye-witnesses did not receive even a single scratch---Said witnesses stated that the assailant even had not made any attempt to cause any injury to them, despite having an opportunity and they were at his mercy---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same will be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence doubtful---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with an unknown accused committed murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Record showed recovery of .30 bore at the instance of accused but the place of recovery of said pistol at the instance of the accused made the said recovery highly doubtful---According to Head Constable, the place of recovery was surrounded by 25/30 houses---House of alleged recovery was owned by one Mr. "G"---Head Constable stated that no one from the family of said Mr. "G"appeared before them at the time of alleged recovery---Alleged recovery was effected from the room of co-accused since acquitted---Parties were closely related to each other and mother of deceased had admitted during her cross-examination that accused was his nephew, therefore alleged recovery of pistol from the house of one Mr. "G" who was admittedly related to both the parties was not worthy of reliance---Thus, it was not safe to rely on such a weak piece of prosecution evidence, which even otherwise was merely corroborative of direct evidence and was not the evidence of charge, hence, did not offer any help to the prosecution case in the absence of any trustworthy and confidence inspiring eye-witnesses account---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Accused was charged that he along with an unknown accused committed murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was previous enmity---As per whole prosecution case the complainant was himself the prime target of the accused because he had no grudge against complainant's deceased wife---Moreso, when the complainant himself was present at the time and place of occurrence and there was no hurdle to eliminate him then there was no reason to spare him and instead commit the murder of his wife---Furthermore, Investigating Officer had stated in his cross-examination that complainant party did not tender any oral or documentary evidence regarding the motive part of the case---Admittedly the animosity, if any, was between the accused and the complainant and the deceased had nothing to do with the alleged motive introduced in the case---In that way the complainant should be the prime target of the accused---Thus, the prosecution had failed to prove the motive alleged by the complainant and the other witnesses against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses---Effect---Accused was charged that he along with an unknown accused committed murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by the complainant and an eye-witness---Complainant was husband of the deceased while eye-witness happened to be her mother-in-law---Though they both claimed to have seen the tragedy with their own eyes but their evidence had material contradictions and inconsistencies---According to complainant, the other witness (since given up) was his friend but according to the version of eye-witness, said witness was her nephew---As per statement of complainant his second wife was also a relative but eye-witness during her statement stated otherwise that she had no relation with second wife of complainant---Another contradictory stance in the statements of both the witnesses of ocular account was that according to complainant the police reached at the place of occurrence at 07:00 p.m. but Head Constable stated the time as 05:30 p.m.---More so, according to complainant, they reached hospital by 12:00 a.m. and remained with the dead body till 5:00 a.m.---On the contrary, Head Constable stated that he reached at THQ, Hospital with dead body at about 07:30 p.m. and reached the police station at about 02:00 a.m.---According to eye-witness, police reached after 45 minutes of the incident, however, according to Head Constable the incident was reported at 05:00 p.m. and the police arrived at 05:30 p.m.---Eye-witness stated that she did not go to the hospital but according to the version of Head Constable she accompanied him to the hospital---Further as per statement of Head Constable they had reached the hospital with the dead body on 25.07.2016 at 07:30 p.m. but according to Woman Medical Officer, the dead body arrived at the hospital at 12:30 a.m. on 26-07-2016 and the police papers followed 15 minutes after---Moreover, said witnesses were interested and related witnesses---Such an attempt on the part of the prosecution had badly shattered its credibility---Said witnesses were not truthful witnesses, therefore, their evidence was discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED VS State Ss. 302(b), 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused was charged that he along with an unknown accused committed murder of the wife of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence ran contrary to the prosecution's case, as according to complainant and mother of deceased, the accused made straight fire shot hitting deceased at her right cheek thereafter, he made repeated fire shots hitting at different parts of her body---Both the said witnesses failed to describe the specific seat of injuries except one injury and according to the medical evidence (post mortem report) the only specific injury described by the eye-witnesses on the right cheek of the deceased (injury No.2) was an exit wound---Moreover, Woman Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, during her cross-examination, had stated that direction of injury No. 1 was lower side to upward---Track/direction of injury Nos. 5 & 6 was also from downward to upward---Said glaring contradictions between the ocular version and the medical evidence had sufficiently established that the alleged eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the relevant time---In such circumstances, the prosecution version with regard to ocular account seemed to be tainted, not confidence inspiring and result of due deliberations as well as consultations, hence the same could not be given any legal credence---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD NAVEED vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 896 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ