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

MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2023
Parties
MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 103

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

MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about seventeen hours and thirty minutes in conducting post-mortem---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was that one day prior to the occurrence a minor altercation took place between deceased and accused party---Undisputedly, the post-mortem examination of the dead-body of deceased was conducted about seventeen hours and thirty 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 were 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 any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 4 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there was a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same would be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. [Para. 10 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant---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 any of the culprits implicated 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. [Para. 8 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Witness---Testimony of 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 testimony of chance witness would fall within the category of suspect evidence and could not be accepted without a pinch of salt. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Ocular account in the case consisted of complainant and two other witnesses---Presence of all the said witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because they allegedly saw the incident from a close distance---However, it was not understandable that in the presence of all the said witnesses, who were closely related to deceased, how such incident with the deceased could happen without any intervention on their part to rescue him---Delay in the post-mortem examination of the dead-body of deceased also casted doubt about their presence on the spot at the time of incident---In the FIR it was the case of complainant that co-accused of the present accused caused injuries to the complainant and other witnesses but no medical evidence qua injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant and other witnesses at the hands of said two ladies was available on record---In the FIR it was mentioned that the complainant and other witnesses shifted deceased in injured condition to Hospital but while appearing before the Trial Court it was the case of complainant that the deceased then injured was shifted to the Hospital through rescue 1122---Complainant had stated in his cross-examination that he was on his motorcycle when he was coming behind the deceased but that fact was not mentioned in the FIR---All the witnesses of ocular account were chance witnesses because the occurrence in the case had taken place about three kilometers away from their houses---Before the Trial Court they had not given any plausible reason for their presence on the spot at the time of incident---All the said witnesses, held, were chance witnesses---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. [Para. 5 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of pistol at the instance of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Record showed that pistol .30-bore was recovered at the instance of accused---Said recovery was immaterial because the prosecution had failed to associate any independent witness of the locality and, thus, the mandatory provisions of S. 103, Cr.P.C., had flagrantly been violated in that regard---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. [Para. 7 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 66 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD TARIQ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the nephew of complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was that the accused persons extended threat to deceased that if again he passed through the street he would be done to death because a minor altercation had taken place between deceased and accused persons but the matter was patched up, however, the accused persons had grudge---No detail as to on which issue altercation took place between the deceased and the accused persons had been brought on record---Same motive was alleged to co-accused of the present accused who had been acquitted by the Trial Court---No independent witness qua motive part of incident was produced by the prosecution during the trial---Prosecution had failed to prove motive 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. [Para. 6 of the judgment]

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