TANVIR AHMAD vs State Benefit of doubt — 2023 PCrLJN 78 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.

TANVIR AHMAD VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---Not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt---If there was a single circumstance creating doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TANVIR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Motive of the occurrence as stated by complainant in his statement was that at morning, an altercation on the dispute of passage took place with deceased---Complainant did not nominate any accused including the present accused and also did not disclose the detail of altercation with specific place and witnesses, hence, motive was not believable---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TANVIR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Brothers of deceased claimed themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Said witnesses stated in their statements before the Trial Court that on the day of occurrence at 9:30 a.m. deceased and his brother went to cut fodder on ox-cart in their land, at about 10:30 a.m. after cutting and loading fodder, they were coming back---Deceased was ahead of his brother---Deceased when reached the land of a Jatt, accused armed with dagger and co-accused (since P.O.) came there on motorcycle---Accused gave dagger blow hitting on the left side of chest of deceased---Neither fodder nor ox-cart had been produced by the complainant party upon which deceased was coming to his house---Rough site plan showed the place where deceased sustained injury, however, dead body of the deceased was lying on wheat crop---Witnesses had not stated that deceased after sustaining injury at or near ox-cart on khaam passage fell in the wheat crop---Investigating Officer stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, dead body of the deceased was lying in the wheat crop---Complainant stated in his cross-examination that the deceased alone after loading the fodder on the ox-cart was coming towards home---Said witness also admitted in his cross-examination that no mark of resistance was present at the place of occurrence---Court witness stated in his cross-examination that on the day of occurrence, during investigation, complainant stated before him that he had not seen the occurrence, occurrence had already taken place---Eye-witness stated that at the time of occurrence, he was cutting the fodder---Statements of eye-witnesses showed that they were not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Scaled site plan and rough site plan of the place of occurrence did not show the houses of the eye-witnesses around the place of occurrence---Eye-witnesses were the chance witnesses but had failed to establish their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TANVIR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime weapon on the pointation of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---Complainant stated the accused during interrogation disclosed and got recovered "Chhurri" from his house---Said witness did not state that "Chhurri" was blood stained at the time of its recovery, hence, positive report of Forensic Science Agency in that respect was not believable, which was discarded---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

TANVIR AHMAD vs State Benefit of doubt — 2023 PCrLJN 78 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported