PERVEZ IQBAL vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 16 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.

PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Dishonest improvements made by eye-witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged or committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Another intriguing aspect of the case was that complainant and eye-witness had made dishonest improvements at the time of evidence before the Trial Court---Complainant had narrated in her complaint that accused and his co-accused (since PO) made fire shots which hit on chest, left shoulder, in front of below the chest and left flank of the deceased---Complainant had not narrated that fires made by the accused persons also hit on the right shoulder and other parts of body of deceased---Same was the position of previous statement of eye-witness but the records spoken otherwise---Said deliberate and dishonest improvement on the part of witnesses made their statements doubtful and unreliable---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---FIR was lodged with promptitude---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Contents of FIR revealed that the alleged incident took place at 08.15 p.m. and the FIR was lodged on the same night at 09.40 p.m. within a period of one hour and twenty five minutes---Registration of FIR with such promptitude as claimed by the prosecution had been found otherwise from the perusal of application submitted by the complainant for registration of FIR---Application mentioned that at about 08.15 p.m., complainant and his son went to Kunwa Wala Chowk for grocery---Complainant had narrated in her cross-examination that matter was reported to the police by some local inmate but the name was not known to her---Police arrived at 09.00 p.m.---Application was got written by a school teacher of her village who took papers etc. from some shop---Said school teacher and complainant were residents of a same Chak which was situated at a distance of 2, 2½ kilometers from that Chak (place of occurrence) and no reasoning had been given by the prosecution with respect to presence of a school teacher belonging to that Chak at the place of occurrence in a winter night---According to the prosecution story the occurrence took place in the presence of eye-witnesses but complainant who happened to be real mother of the deceased and other witness who was his paternal cousin did not attempt to proceed to police station for lodging the FIR---According to the narration of application for registration of FIR the same was produced before Investigating Officer at the alleged place of occurrence by complainant---First Information Report was not lodged at Police Station because eye-witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence and same was got registered after due deliberation and consultation---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two months and twenty one days in filing the private complaint---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that being dissatisfied with the police investigation, complainant filed a private complaint with the delay of 02 months and 21 days---Prosecution had not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay---Private complaint was filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Opinion of the police---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that accused was declared innocent during two successive investigations---Although ipse dixit of the police was not binding upon the Court but at the same time it could be considered if that was based on some cogent and convincing material---In the present case, in the two successive investigations the police had thoroughly probed the matter and crux of both the investigations was that accused was not present at the time and place of occurrence---Record showed that while forming the opinion, SI, court witness had joined notables as well as people of the vicinity where the occurrence took place and in that regard one Imam mosque, owner of the house adjacent to the place of occurrence, four PCO owners appeared during the course of investigation---Said persons stated that they were present at the time and place of occurrence and accused was not present at the time and place of occurrence---Said witnesses were the independent witnesses of the locality who fully supported the version of the accused---Opinion of police in the case was based on sound as well as cogent reasoning and same was reliable---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Conflicts---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Prosecution story was that accused and his co-accused (since PO) jointly made pistol .30 bore fire shots which landed upon the right shoulder, in front of below the chest and on left flank, whereas, according to the statement of Medical Officer, he had not described any injury in front of below the chest of deceased---Injury described by the witnesses at the left flank of deceased was exit wound, in that way, the ocular account of prosecution case was not synchronized with the medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of thirteen hours and forty five minutes in conducting the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence had gone a long way in creating doubts in the same---In that respect, it had been observed that the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased was conducted at 10.00 a.m. with the delay of 13 hours and 45 minutes---No exegesis qua the delay in conducting the post-mortem examination was available---Medical Officer had stated in his examination-in-chief that he received police papers at 10.00 a.m.---Case was of delayed post-mortem, which casted serious doubt about the prosecution story---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 on the 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 could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Joint role of firing---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Record showed that a joint role of firing was attributed to the accused that he along with his co-accused (since PO) made pistol .30 bore fire shots which landed below the front of chest, left shoulder and left flank of deceased---Record did not show that out of two assailants whose fire shots landed on which part of the deceased---Said fact made the case of prosecution highly doubtful in nature---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Night time occurrence---Source of light---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Occurrence took place at 08.15 p.m. and it was night time---Although, the prosecution had alleged that the witnesses witnessed the occurrence in the electric light but the Investigating Officer had neither taken into possession any source of light nor the prosecution witnesses produced the same---Vividly that when the source of light was not established, the witnesses had no occasion to have a glance of the culprits and thus their involvement in the case was not free from doubt---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Withholding best evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Scanning of prosecution evidence, alleged occurrence took place in thickly populated commercial area of the chak---Complainant during her cross-examination deposed that there was one Hotel etc. on the western side of place of occurrence and the another Hotel was located on the eastern side---At the time of occurrence son of complainant was standing on western side to purchase some sweets---According to the statement of complainant, she came to the chak in the company of her deceased son and daughter-in-law---Daughter-in-law of complainant, owner of sweet house as well as workers at Hotel were the important witnesses---Said witnesses were neither produced during the investigation nor before the Trial Court---In that way best evidence had been withheld by the prosecution---Although, the prosecution was not bound to produce a number of witnesses because the quality and not the quantity of evidence was rule but withholding of quite natural and material witnesses of the occurrence in the peculiar circumstances of the case without any justifiable cause led the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution within the purview of Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Had any of the said witnesses was produced before the Trial Court for examination, he would have not supported the prosecution version---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Motive---Scope---If the prosecution asserted a motive but failed to prove the same then such failure on the part of the prosecution may react against a sentence to be passed against a convict on the charge of murder. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL 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 benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Motive behind the occurrence was that fifteen days prior to the occurrence deceased and his wife went to Chak where co-accused (since PO) made jokes to the wife of deceased, upon which, a quarrel took place between co-accused (since PO) and deceased---Due to that grudge, the accused and his co-accused committed the murder of deceased---Neither direct motive was attributed to the accused nor the report qua motive incident was reported to the police station---Silence was with regard to minutiae of motive as alleged by the prosecution, thus, the Trial Court had rightly disbelieved the motive---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case PERVEZ IQBAL VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Non-availability of justification for the presence of witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged or committing murder of the son of the complainant by firing---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and a eye-witness---Complainant was real mother of the deceased while eye-witness was paternal cousin of the deceased---Admittedly, complainant was residing at a distance of 2-2½ kilometres from the place of occurrence---After minute perusal of statement of complainant, it manifested that she was interested and chance witness and the evidence furnished by her was not confidence inspiring---While appearing before the Trial Court complainant had failed to describe the abuttals---Complainant had stated in her cross-examination that application was moved on the next day of occurrence and FIR was lodged---If complainant had been present at the time and place of occurrence, the FIR would have been registered well in time---Evidence of complainant was not confidence inspiring, therefore, there was no option except to discard the same---Evidence of eye-witness was concerned, although he had stated that he was resident of the same village where the alleged occurrence took place, however, the complainant had replied in her cross-examination that eye-witness was husband of her other niece and she did not know the chak where he along with his parents was residing---In that way, said eye-witness was also related, interested and partisan witness---Said eye-witness had enmity prior to the occurrence with the accused and that fact was evident from his cross-examination because previously FIR was registered against said eye-witness and accused supported the complainant party of that case---Said eye-witness had also stated in his cross-examination that he had never got his statement recorded before the police---Eye-witness further stated that he did not know that what was the season in which the occurrence took place---In the light of such facts, it seemed that evidence of eye-witness had no intrinsic worth and was rejected outrightly---Circumstances suggested that said eye-witnesses were related and chance witnesses, their evidence was not trustworthy and they had deposed against the accused just to wreak vengeance---Both the eye-witnesses had narrated only three injuries in their statements but according to the post mortem report of deceased and statement of Medical Officer, there were eight entry and eight exit wounds and two other injuries i.e. abrasion and grazing wounds on the body of deceased---Said fact was sufficient to hold that said prosecution witnesses were not present at the time and place of occurrence, if they were present at the relevant time, then they must have described the whole injuries---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against convictions was allowed, in circumstances.

PERVEZ IQBAL vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 16 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported