MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 8 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 ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of CCTV footage---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---Insofar as the evidence of the prosecution regarding the recording of C.D of CCTV cameras, produced through witness and evidence of the shop keeper, on whose shop CCTV cameras were installed, was concerned, it was claimed by the prosecution that in the said CCTV footage, minor was last seen alive in the company of the accused---Said shop keeper stated that initially he refused the complainant party to see the recording of his CCTV cameras but subsequently, the complainant party approached him through the inhabitants of the area whereupon, he allowed them to see the recording of his CCTV cameras---Said witness also stated that one of the persons went inside and checked the recording of CCTV cameras and the said person took his USB---Said witness did not mention the name of the person who checked the CCTV cameras of his shop and took USB of the said cameras---Statement of said witness in that respect was completely silent---Witness did not state that any Police Official also accompanied at the time of checking the recording of CCTV cameras rather he stated that he was approached by the inhabitants of the area but he did not disclose the name of any inhabitant of his area who approached him and took the USB of the recording of his CCTV cameras---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Extra-judicial confession---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---Record showed that the witnesses of extra judicial confession had stated in their statements recorded by the Trial Court that the accused came to them for extra judicial confession on 12.5.2017 but no time or place of making the alleged extra judicial confession by the accused had been mentioned by both the said witnesses---Although according to the statement of said prosecution witnesses, the accused made extra judicial confession before them on 12.5.2017 but according to the statement of one of the witnesses, the said witness made statement before the police under S. 161, Cr.P.C. after 18 days from making the alleged extra judicial confession by the accused, whereas, other witness stated that he never got recorded his statement to the Investigating Officer---Although, both the said witnesses of extra-judicial confession claimed that the accused made extra-judicial confession before them regarding the commission of a heinous offence about the murder of a minor girl of four years but they did not try to apprehend the accused who was alone at the relevant time, whereas the witnesses were two in number---Conduct of the said witnesses was highly unnatural---Both the said witnesses were not enjoying any status of authority in the society which could have prompted the accused to make extra-judicial confession before them---Said witnesses were not in a position to pardon the accused from the complainant---Evidence of said witnesses was not worthy of reliance---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Benefit of doubt--- Principle---Single circumstance creating doubt regarding the prosecution case will be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Circumstantial evidence---Scope---Circumstantial evidence must be of the nature where all circumstances should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other to the neck of the accused---If any link in the chain is missing then its benefit must go to the accused. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---Prosecution witness in whose shop CCTV camera was installed categorically stated during his cross-examination that he did not join the investigation in police station---On the other hand, Investigating Officer of the case had stated that he along with other Police Officials and the complainant reached at the shop of said witness and watched the recording of CCTV cameras which were installed at the said shop---Investigating Officer further stated that CD recording of CCTV cameras was handed over to him by said witness and as such, there were glaring contradictions in the prosecution case regarding the recovery and safe custody of CD of CCTV cameras---According to the evidence of Investigating Officer, the complainant had seen the recording of CCTV cameras of the shop of said witness and with the help of said recording, the complainant identified the accused in the company of his minor daughter on the relevant date and time but complainant did not utter a single word in his statement recorded by the Trial Court that he had seen the recording of CCTV cameras of the shop of said witness through which he identified the accused in the company of his daughter on the relevant date and time---Complainant did not state that he ever visited the shop of said witness or recording of CCTV cameras of said shop was seen by him and the same was taken into possession by Investigating Officer in his presence---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Pointation of place of occurrence by accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---Complainant deposed regarding the pointation of the accused towards canal, where the accused had statedly thrown alive the girl in the canal but nothing was recovered from the said place, statedly pointed out by the accused---Medical Officer had not stated that the minor died due to drowning in the water, whereas, her dead body had already been recovered by the police therefore, the said evidence of the complainant regarding the alleged pointation of place, where the accused statedly threw the minor in the canal, was of no avail to the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Motive not proved---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---Admittedly, the accused was real paternal uncle of minor/deceased aged about 04 years---Complainant was real brother of the accused---Said witness had not uttered a single word during his evidence recorded by the Trial Court or even in the FIR or in his supplementary statement regarding any motive against the accused to commit the murder of his minor daughter---No reason, whatsoever, had been brought on the record that as to why the accused had committed the murder of his minor niece---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---According to the evidence of two prosecution witnesses of extra judicial confession, the accused confessed before them that he had committed the murder of minor by throwing her into the canal---Medical evidence revealed by Medical Officer, the cause of death in the case could not be determined due to the advance stage of purification---In column No. 13 of the post-mortem report of the minor, her three vaginal swabs were taken for semen detection and DNA test but according to the report of Forensic Science Agency, no seminal material was detected on the vaginal swab therefore, no DNA test was conducted in the case---Medical evidence was silent regarding the rupture of hymen of the minor---No allegation against the accused by any prosecution witness that he committed rape/unnatural offence with minor before committing her murder---Medical Officer had not opined that cause of death of the minor was asphyxia due to drowning in the water, as claimed by the prosecution---Prosecution case did not support the medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA VS State Ss. 302(b) & 363--- Qatl-i-amd, abduction--- Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of minor daughter of the complainant after her abduction---No prosecution evidence of last seen was available on the record against the accused---No witness had stated that he had last seen alive the minor in the company of the accused on the day of occurrence---Evidence of CCTV footage could be considered at the most as last seen evidence against the accused but it was noteworthy that the distance between the place where the minor was seen in the company of the accused and the place where the minor was allegedly thrown by the accused in the water or his dead body was recovered had not been brought on the record by the prosecution---Although CD of CCTV cameras recording had been produced in the prosecution evidence but no specific date and time had been mentioned by any prosecution witness that as to when the minor was seen alive in the company of the accused in the said CCTV cameras recording---In order to believe the evidence of last seen, there should be close proximity between the time and place of recovery of dead body of the deceased or the place of occurrence and the time and place where the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused, however, nothing in that respect had been brought on the record during the evidence of prosecution witnesses---Prosecution evidence of last seen was not worthy of reliance---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ACCHA vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 8 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported