TAHIR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 83 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.

TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Same set of evidence/witness statements forming basis of acquittal of co-accused was used to convict accused without any independent corroboration---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Two accused who were assigned specific fires on the person of deceased had been acquitted and said acquittal had not been taken to any exception---Statements of two eye-witnesses had been found false or incorrect to the extent of two accused---When two accused similarly placed had been acquitted by disbelieving the statements of two eye-witnesses, they could not be relied upon qua the present accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Non-availability of Call Data Record---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Co-accused, according to complainant, was the one who made a telephone call to deceased and then witnesses arrived there---Complainant in his cross-examination replied that CDR of deceased was given to Investigating Officer but neither CDR nor any telephone number of deceased was there to support the allegations of calling deceased by co-accused---Said CDR could be the best evidence in support of prosecution's story and in absence thereof it was another challenge faced by it---Co-accused who called deceased had been acquitted whereas accused had been convicted in the case---Acquittal of co-accused which still held the field as admitted by the prosecution had destroyed the basic story, so how prosecution could defend the conviction of accused persons---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of six days in reporting the matter to the police---Effect---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Motive was that the deceased got registered FIR for the theft of his bull against the accused party, due to that grudge, occurrence took place---Complainant did not deny moving of application to SHO with a delay of six days---Said application was completely silent about the reasons which were hurdles in his way to inform the Police well in time---Even if delay was ignored, an important fact would remain in the field that whether it was first information in reality to the Police or the position was otherwise---Investigating Officer, in the injuries statement had referred case FIR No. 479/16 under S. 324, P.P.C., dated 22.11.2016---When Investigating Officer was asked in that context, his answers appeared to be unnatural---Further cross-examination transpired that the said FIR number pertained to an offence under S. 376(i), P.P.C., and not relevant to the case---First information about the occurrence was received by Investigating Officer but it was withheld by the prosecution and the court found no difficulty to hold that the first information was not the one that complainant alleged in FIR got recorded after six days of the occurrence and in the complaint filed before the court---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Non-availability of justification for the presence of eye-witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Record showed that the eye-witnesses of the case were residing at a distance of 3 or 4 kilometers from crime scene---Acquittal of co-accused had smashed the prosecution story that deceased was called at tube well by him and in such circumstances eye-witnesses were proved to be the chance witnesses who could not furnish any reasonable explanation about their presence at crime scene---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Witness---Statement---Improvements---Scope---Witness who made material improvements during trial, his testimony would remain of no worth for prosecution. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime empties from the spot---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---According to FIR accused and his two co-accused (acquitted) were the persons who made firing---Investigating Officer maintained that on spot inspection he recovered crime empties and those were 6/7 of 12 bore and 3 or 4 of 30 bore which he did not make into sealed parcel---However, said witness added that he handed over all the crime empties and blood-stained earth to a Police Official---On the other hand, said Police Official categorically denied that he ever joined Investigating Officer in the investigation---Complete statement of said witness was silent about receiving of any crime empty or blood stained earth from Investigating Officer---Prosecution's story was coming step by step under serious doubts---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of weapons of offence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Recoveries of pistol and repeater at the instances of accused persons had no value---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAHIR VS State Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---One of the accused was not nominated accused and he was implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement---Complainant and a witness alleged in the Court that said accused also made a fire that hit on the back of knee of deceased---Neither in FIR nor in complaint any fire was attributed to any of the unknown assailants---Even it was difficult to find out that the unknown persons were having any weapon with them---Whatever the allegations were there in FIR with regard to firing those were to the extent of three accused---Both the eye-witnesses first time introduced a fire by one of the accused in court which meant that they improved their statements---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

TAHIR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 83 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported