MUHAMMAD UMAIR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 2 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 UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Presence of witnesses was doubtful---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be previous violent confrontation---Ocular account had been furnished by complainant and two injured---One injured was resident of same village but his house was situated at a distance of ten acres from the place of occurrence---Similarly, other injured was resident of other District, which was situated at a distance of 3/4 kilometers from the place of occurrence---Site plans showed that the houses of the injured were not near the place of occurrence---Said fact was admitted by draftsman by stating that he had not mentioned the residencies of witnesses, complainant and accused around the place of occurrence---Complainant was not the witness of inquest report and post-mortem report of the deceased---Had complainant been present at the time and place of occurrence, he must have been the witness of inquest report---Complainant should have escorted the dead body to the hospital being son of the deceased and his name should have been mentioned in the post-mortem report in the column of identification of the dead body---According to the stance of injured, he was owner of the rickshaw, which was hired by the complainant party to reach the hospital for getting X-ray report regarding the previous incident of fight but as per statement of the Investigating Officer no such rickshaw was present at the time of his site inspection even no such rickshaw was produced before the Investigating Officer to establish the said fact---Injured failed to produce any proof regarding the ownership of the rickshaw---Said facts and contradictions revealed that the occurrence had not taken place as per story of prosecution---All the witnesses were interested and not truthful witnesses---Said witnesses were not trustworthy and reliable, therefore, their evidence had been discarded--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapon of offence and crime empties---Reliance---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Record showed that pistol .30 bore was recovered from the accused, however, said recovery being purely corroboratory in nature could not be considered to sustain conviction on a capital charge---Report of the Forensic Science Agency showed that crime empties secured from the place of occurrence were found to have not been fired from pistol 30 bore allegedly recovered at the instance of accused and the said report was only to the extent of its being in mechanical operating condition---Recovery of pistol was inconsequential and not helpful to the prosecution against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest improvement made by complainant---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Contents of FIR showed that after hearing the sound of firing and noise witnesses reached at the place of occurrence when already deceased as well as injured persons had sustained injuries---According to the contents of private complaint, the complainant had narrated that both the said witnesses were present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and they had witnessed the occurrence; in that way, the complainant had made dishonest improvement---Such statement of complainant was to be discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty---If there was only one doubt, the benefit of the same would go to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Motive--- Scope--- If prosecution set up a motive but fails to prove it, then, it was the prosecution and not the accused who had to suffer. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Maxim: falsus in uno falsus in omnibus---Applicability---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Contents of the complaint showed that on the day of incident, co-accused gave sota blow, which landed on left arm of injured---Other co-accused made fire shot with his pistol which landed at left foot of injured---Another co-accused made straight fire shot with pistol which hit injured on his right thigh but the said co-accused had been acquitted of the charge through the impugned judgment, which had been assailed by the complainant through filing of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal, which had been dismissed---Once prosecution witnesses were disbelieved with respect to one co-accused then, they could not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they were supported by corroboratory evidence coming from independent source and would be unimpeachable in nature but that was not available in the 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, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Ocular account and medical evidence---Contradictions---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Prosecution story was that the accused made fire shot upon deceased from the roof of a house, while standing at balcony, whereas the deceased was standing on the ground---Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased during his cross-examination stated that entry and exit wound were on the same level of body and fire hitting the deceased had straight passed away---Keeping in view the situation, it was not possible that if a fire was made from upward to downward then the injury could be straight---Material contradiction existed between the ocular and medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of two days in recording the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Injured during his cross-examination described that the first time police met the witnesses two days after the occurrence at the Hospital and they got recorded their statements to police at hospital---One or two days unexplained delay in recording the statement of eye-witnesses would be fatal and testimony of such witnesses could not be safely relied upon---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD UMAIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 148---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Injured witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant and also causing injuries to the two other members of the complainant party---Prosecution's version was that injured witnesses had sustained injuries during the same occurrence but Medical Officer during his cross-examination stated that both the injured persons narrated about the history of injuries to him and the injured persons did not disclose name and weapon of any accused in their statements---Medical Officer also admitted that he did not mention in Medico-Legal Certificate of injured that he received any firearm injury---Medical Officer further admitted that he could not assess the kind of weapon, by which injuries were caused to injured persons---Even otherwise, the injuries were only indicative of their presence at the place of occurrence and did not necessarily amount that whatever they spoke was a gospel truth---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD UMAIR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 2 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported