MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Witness — 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Witness---Chance witness---Scope---Testimony of chance witness ordinarily was not accepted unless justifiable reasons were shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time---In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot---Testimony of chance witness might be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to a prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot were put forth, when the occurrence took place, otherwise his testimony will fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single circumstance which created doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same would be sufficient to give benefit to the accused. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Medical evidence---Scope---Medical evidence might confirm the ocular account with regard to the receipt of injury, locale of injury, kind of weapon used for causing the injury, duration between the injury and the death but it would not tell the name of the assailants. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Ss. 302(b), 34, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Dispute of landed property between the parties was motive behind the occurrence---Complainant moved application implicating the accused and their co-accused with a delay of more than one month without there being any satisfactory explanation---Subsequently, the complainant instituted a private complaint with a delay of about one year after the occurrence almost on the same facts as mentioned in the application---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Ss. 302(b), 34, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Allegedly, dispute of landed property between the parties was motive behind the occurrence---No solid/convincing evidence qua motive part of incident was produced by the prosecution during the trial---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN VS MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Ss. 302(b), 34, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of eye-witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Admittedly, complainant was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, the testimony of said witness was excluded from consideration---Ocular account in the case consisted of three witnesses---Presence of all the said witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because they did not receive even a scratch during the incident---Said witnesses did not make an abortive attempt to save the life of their deceased from the clutches of accused persons and their co-accused---All the eye-witnesses had not given any plausible reason for their presence on the spot at the time of incident---As per statement of one of the witnesses the distance between their houses and the place of occurrence was about 2/2½ metres---Said witnesses had no place of business or agricultural land near the place of occurrence---Said witnesses were chance witnesses---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 4 of the judgment]

MUHAMMAD HANIF KHAN vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Witness — 2023 PCrLJN 110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported