Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN 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 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of three days in lodging FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Incident in the present case, according to the prosecution, was alleged to have taken place on 25-07-2016---Police Station was about 05 kilometers away from place of occurrence---Matter was reported by complainant through written application on the basis of which formal FIR was chalked out on 28-07-2016 with the delay of 03 days---Notable that maternal aunt and maternal grandmother of deceased respectively and inmate of the same house were fully aware about his disappearance but they had not bothered to inform the police---No plausible explanation for the said delay in reporting the matter to the police had been brought on the record---Said delay in setting the machinery of law into motion spoke volume against the veracity of prosecution version---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of motorcycle on the pointation of accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---So far as the recovery of motorcycle vide seizure memo was concerned, no registration number, colour, its company name had been described in the FIR, nor in the supplementary statement of the complainant---Even the statements of the prosecution witnesses were silent in that regard---In that way, recovery of motorcycle at the pointation of accused was inconsequential and not helpful to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN 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 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Call Data Record---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---As far as recovery of CDR was concerned, which simply depicted the number of caller as well of recipient, location, duration of call and not more than that, even there was no evidence that what was the conversation made between the caller and recipient---Said document did not bear attestation of IT Branch of DPO Office---Even according to the prosecution version, the mobile phone of the victim after the occurrence was not responding and allegedly the same was drowned in the canal water along with the dead body---Investigating Officer during his statement stated that he collected no record to confirm who was the owner of the said mobile phone number---Said witness further stated that during his investigation, no written proof was presented to him that the deceased was owner of the said mobile phone number---Even otherwise, according to Investigating Officer, in the statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C., none of the witnesses mentioned that in whose name the said SIM was registered---Investigating Officer did not record the statement of the person, who had printed out the data from the computer of the said mobile phone number---Prosecution had failed to collect the proof of ownership from the concerned company in order to ascertain that on whose name the SIM was registered---No voice record transcript had been brought on the record---Moreover, CDR was not conclusive proof of involvement of accused in the commission of crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- Extra-judicial confession--- Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Allegedly, extra-judicial confession was made by the accused before the complainant---When the judicial confession of accused was already penned down by Judicial Magistrate then the accused had no need to confess his guilt before anyone, particularly before complainant at a later stage---According to the statement of complainant, Mr. "M" was also present during her first meeting in jail with the accused but during trial said Mr. "M" was examined as a witness on the application of accused and in his statement, he totally negated the stance of complainant by stating that the complainant party earlier had a suspicion that father of deceased was behind his disappearance---After the meeting, they decided to trace out the victim from Madrissas etc. and from his father---Complainant at that time felt satisfied from the accused---Even otherwise, Investigating Officer during his cross-examination stated that complainant, her mother and sister did not nominate any person as an accused in their statements before him---Investigating Officer further stated that the said ladies also did not show any suspicion against any person---No motive was also asserted by the said ladies before the Investigating Officer---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of broken spectacles and wrist watch on the pointation of the accused---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---With regard to the recovery of broken spectacles and wrist watch on the pointation of the accused vide seizure memos were concerned, the same did not connect the accused with the commission of offence---Notable, that the witnesses of said recovery memos were Police Officials and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution---Thus, the Investigation Officer while effecting the recovery of said articles at the instance of the accused had committed a violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C., even no identification memo was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which further created doubt with regard to the said recoveries---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictory stance of witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---In the present case, the witness who happened to be a maternal grand-mother of deceased and also real mother of complainant, had filed an application under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C., in the court of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for the registration of second FIR with the different story that on 25.7.2016 at Maghrib prayer time, accused came at her house and inquired about her grandson/deceased, who was present outside the house in a shop---On calling, deceased hurriedly came home and after preparation went along with the accused---Said witness further asserted that her elder daughter had illicit relations with accused and a police official as well as two other unknown persons and they had kidnapped and murdered her grandson---In the light of the statements of said witness and complainant, it was crystal clear that complainant was already well aware about the facts disclosed by witnesses before the registration of FIR and even names of witnesses of last seen evidence as well as others should have been mentioned in the FIR but the prosecution evidence stated otherwise---In view of said facts, it was the considered view that the prosecution had cooked up a false and fabricated story afterwards---Even otherwise, there was contradictory stance qua the abduction and murder of deceased and the prosecution evidence in that respect was under the clouds of doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Last seen evidence---Scope---Last seen evidence is always considered to be a weak type of evidence, unless corroborated by some other independent evidence. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Motive---Scope---although, the prosecution is not under obligation to establish a motive in every murder case but if prosecution sets up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Last seen evidence had been furnished by two witnesses---According to the statements of said two witnesses of last seen, on 25.7.2016 at 08:00 p.m., they were present at a Chowk in connection with some domestic affairs---In the meantime, witnesses had seen accused with deceased coming towards them on motorcycle and stopped near them---Deceased talked to his father, who inquired from them where were they going, upon which accused told that he was taking the victim to his own house---Then they separated and went on their way---Thereafter, on 30.7.2016, father of deceased told one of the witnesses of last seen that his son was missing---Both the said witnesses came to the mother of the victim and told her that they had witnessed the victim with the accused on 25.7.2016---Noteworthy, that the said witnesses had failed to justify their presence at Chowk on 25.7.2016, when they allegedly saw deceased in the company of accused---According to the witness, his residence was situated about 70/80 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence---According to the statement of said witness, in connection with marriage proposal of his nephew, they had visited "S" on 25.7.2016---Concerned person, to whom they had to meet, was Mr. "S" but the prosecution had failed to produce the said witness during the course of investigation or before the Trial Court---Similarly, the other witness stated that he had not told to the police in his statement, the purpose for which he came to place "S" on 25.7.2016---Even otherwise conduct of said witness was highly unnatural because being the real father of deceased, why he allowed his minor son in the company of an unknown person---Both the said witnesses were interested witnesses and due to their unnatural conduct they could not be termed as truthful witnesses---Evidence of said witnesses was not worthy of reliance---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---In the present case, only piece of evidence left with the prosecution was the evidence of motive---Although no motive had been described in the FIR as well as in supplementary statement of the complainant but the same was described by father of deceased---Said witness had a suspicion that accused had committed murder of his son and had concealed his dead body somewhere---Later on, he came to know that the accused had illicit relations with complainant and since she had gone to other country, so he committed murder of her son because he wanted to marry complainant---However, it was only an oral assertion of father of deceased and no substantial evidence in shape of documentary evidence had been led by the prosecution to prove the motive part of the occurrence---In that way, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the motive part of the occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Judicial confession of the accused---Legal formalities not observed---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Judicial Magistrate had not observed the legal formalities required under the law for recording judicial confession of the accused---Judicial confession attributed to the accused had been retracted by him before the Trial Court---Thus, the said confession could not be relied upon in the absence of any independent corroboration---In the absence of evidentiary certainty, it would be unsafe to maintain the convictions on moral satisfaction that certainly could not be equated with legal proof---All the said state of affairs led to irresistible conclusion to discard the judicial confession---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Nomination of accused through supplementary statement---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Initially, on 28.7.2016, the FIR was got registered by complainant against unknown accused person---Thereafter, on 30.7.2016, she (complainant) got recorded her supplementary statement and nominated the accused with the assertion that on 30-07-2016, her ex-husband met and told her that on the day of occurrence i.e. 25.7.2016 at about 08:20 p.m., he met his son/victim along with accused---Accused allegedly told that he was taking the deceased to his house---Complainant suspected that accused had committed murder of her son and his dead body had been concealed somewhere---On the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant, the accused was arrested---Statement of complainant was totally based upon hearsay evidence and not reliable, as according to the statement of Investigating Officer, on 4.8.2016, he got issued proclamation regarding missing of the victim---Thus, it was strange enough when the complainant had already nominated the accused on 30-07-2016 then there was no occasion to get the proclamation issued---Meaning thereby that the prosecution was not certain about the involvement of the accused in the occurrence till 4.8.2016---However, supplementary statement was made with the purpose to strengthen the case of the prosecution in connivance with the Police Officials or some other ulterior motives to get the suspect convicted by hook or crook---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN VS State Ss. 302(b), 365 & 201---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Unnatural conduct of complainant---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him---Record showed that as per statement of the witness of circumstantial evidence, it was crystal clear that she had already disclosed to complainant qua her receiving phone call from accused on 11-07-2016 that he had threatened about deceased---When complainant had already been informed then why she had not got registered FIR against the accused and why the names of witnesses of last seen and witnesses of circumstantial evidence were not incorporated in the FIR---Said facts were sufficient to shatter the credibility of prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case AKBAR alias MOHSIN vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 917 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ