PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

BABAR MASIH vs State S — 2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2023
Parties
BABAR MASIH vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 161---D; S. 161

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

BABAR MASIH VS State S. 161---Delay in recording the statement of witness by police---Scope---Credibility of a witness is looked with serious suspicion if his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded with delay without offering any plausible explanation. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case BABAR MASIH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of twelve hours and fifteen minutes in conducting the post-mortem upon the dead body of the deceased---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant by firing---Undeniably, the post-mortem examination of the dead-body of deceased was conducted about twelve hours and fifteen minutes after the occurrence---Such noticeable delay was normally occasioned due to incomplete police papers necessary to be handed over to the Medical Officer to conduct the post-mortem examination of dead body of the deceased which happened only when the complainant and police remained busy in consultation and preliminary inquiry regarding the culprits in such cases of un-witnessed occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case BABAR MASIH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail to the prosecution because the murder in issue had remained un-witnessed---Medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards the accused implicated in the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond of reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Para. 7 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case BABAR MASIH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant by firing---Ocular account in the case consisted of complainant and two other witnesses---Accused was not nominated in the FIR either by name or description---Case of complainant in FIR was that during the night at 11:00 p.m. three unknown accused persons entered his house out of whom one of accused made a fire with .30 bore pistol which landed on right side of chest of his father---In the FIR, it was alleged that the bulb was lit in the courtyard of the house at the time of incident and that the accused persons could be identified on their confrontation but no bulb was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation---Accused was implicated in the case through supplementary statement of complainant mentioning therein that he came to know through reliable sources that accused committed the murder of his father by making a fire---Not mentioned in the said supplementary statement as to from which source the complainant came to know about the name of the accused---Supplementary statement was got recorded by the complainant about four days after the occurrence without there being any satisfactory explanation---Complainant had clarified in his cross-examination that he came to know about the name of accused through his sister---Complainant had further stated in his cross-examination that his sister started working under the employment of accused on daily wages about 3/4 years prior to the occurrence---Accused used to visit their house during the period of employment of his sister---Complainant stated that he met with accused for number of times---Complainant was well acquainted with the accused prior to the incident, if it was so, then as to why complainant did not nominate the accused straightway in the FIR---So far as testimony of other witness was concerned, the presence of said witness on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because he was closely related to the complainant but he did not make even an abortive attempt to save the deceased from the clutches of the accused---Another eye-witness had stated in her examination-in-chief that on the fateful night the accused came to her house in order to meet her who was apprehended by her father and the accused committed his murder by making a fire---Admittedly, the name of said witness was not mentioned in the FIR---Statement of said witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C., was recorded by Investigating Officer about ten months after the occurrence, which was fatal to the prosecution case---Affidavit executed by said witness about the occurrence had no value in the eye of law---Evidence of said three witnesses was shaky in nature and could not be relied upon for maintaining the conviction/sentence of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond of reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case BABAR MASIH VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single circumstance which created doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same would be sufficient to give its benefit to the accused. [Para. 9 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case BABAR MASIH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence at the instance of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant by firing---So far as alleged recovery of 30 bore pistol at the instance of accused was concerned the same was immaterial because the accused got recovered the same from nearby an electric pole which was an open place, accessible to everyone---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond of reasonable doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Para. 6 of the judgment]

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English