ABDULLAH vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 89 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.

ABDULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---No justification provided for the presence of witnesses at the spot---Chance witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive was that accused forbade his wife not to visit the house of her brothers and due to that grudge, they had committed the occurrence---Accused with one fire shot hitting on the belly of deceased had attended two witnesses against him who claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence---Name of one eye-witness was not mentioned in the site plan, when juxtaposed with his statement giving a thought of being not present at the place of occurrence---Said witness during cross-examination admitted that occurrence took place at the hotel which was 2½ kilometers away from his house and similarly admitted that other witnesses were also living near him---Said witness stated that accused made effective fire shot while co-accused made two fires in the air---No empty was recovered from the place of occurrence and said witness also admitted that he did not collect any empty from the spot and further admitted that when police arrived at place of occurrence he did not indicate the point of empties to the police---Said witness did not know as to whether owner of hotel was associated in the investigation but in the other breath said that he was inquired---Though admitted that witnesses were sitting at the hotel when occurrence took place but deposed that dead body was lying in vacant plot and at the end his cross-examination had verified the fact again that he had permanent dwelling in the area and his house was 2½ k.m. away from hotel and his story of taking tea at the hotel also belied from the fact when he admitted that there were many tea shops on the way from his house to hotel and volunteered, might be 30 to 35---Said witness had not stated any specific reason for his presence at the particular tea stall---Admittedly, deceased was Behnoi (brother-in-law) and accused was Sala (brother-in-law)---Witness when appeared stated that there was no dispute between deceased and both the accused---During trial the word dispute was further clarified in the cross-examination and it turned out to be a synonymous of enmity, so it stood clear that there was no enmity between the deceased and the accused---Said witness had also admitted that in the morning he was in his house which was 03-k.m. away from the hotel and deposed that they had no other purpose on the said day except to take tea and stated that he was unable to recall the numbers of chairs and tables inside the hotel and admitted that they were sitting there for 1? hours and deposed a fact that he performed his prayers regularly and on the day of occurrence he offered Zohar prayer after occurrence---Said fact could not be accepted as true because reportedly occurrence took place at 03:00 p.m. and 03:00 p.m. was not the time of Zohar---Witness admitted that they had not chased the accused and remained at the place of occurrence---Said witness further stated that police arrived after about one hour when complainant had gone to police whereas complainant stated that police came at its own within 15-minutes---Witness was unable to explain that whose shop it was on the side of place of occurrence and also did not state some other basic information; however, there was doubt about the presence of these two witnesses at the place of occurrence---Said witnesses being chance witnesses could not establish their presence at the time or around the place of occurrence---Apparently, presence of these witnesses was doubtful---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. [Para. 6 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defence evidence---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Though prosecution had not put owner of the hotel in the dock to confirm the factum of receiving fire by the deceased at the hands of accused but said witness appeared in the dock as defence witness and stated that he was present at the place of occurrence and had not seen the accused making fire at the deceased---Said witness had only seen the dead body lying on the ground and the final touch he made that he did not see any of the witnesses at that time and they did not attend his hotel on that day---Though said witness was cross-examined but nothing material was brought on record---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed miserably to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances. [Para. 8 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDULLAH 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 his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive as alleged by the prosecution could not be proved because no evidence was brought on record and eye-witness admitted that there was no dispute/enmity between accused and the deceased---Nothing was left to talk about motive anymore which was missing in the case---Prosecution had failed to establish the motive part---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. [Para. 10 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Pistol was recovered at instance of accused---Reliance---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Pistol though was shown recovered at the lead of the accused yet no crime empty was recovered to put a force in that piece of evidence, therefore, said recovery was inconsequential, in circumstances---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. [Para. 9 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDULLAH 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 his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Medical evidence in the present case was scanty and doubtful---Post-mortem examination was conducted on the next day with the delay of about 17-hours---Head Constable/witness who escorted the dead body stated that he took the dead body on next day and did not state anything from where he had took the dead body---Said witness did not depose about time of dispatching the dead body nor explained any reason of such delay---Medical Officer when appeared in the dock stated that he observed one fire arm injury without blackening and burning---Site plan though showed presence of deceased where he received fire but no point was shown from where accused persons had made fire shot upon him and in fact when there was no point there was no question of inter-se distance between the accused and the deceased---Even Medical Officer had not observed any exit wound which showed that it was a distant fire which ruled out as targeted or aimed---Medical Officer had also discovered bullet from the body of the deceased which was handed over to the police but police had not sent it for testing or examination---Though there was no contradiction in medical yet circumstances including delay in conducting post-mortem examination made the prosecution story doubtful and also casting clouds on the presence of witnesses---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court. [Para. 7 of the judgment]

ABDULLAH vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 89 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported