MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 97 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 AKRAM 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 for committing murder of the father of the complainant---Record showed that 30-bore pistol was recovered at the instance of accused---Recovery of pistol was not material because the report of Forensic Science Agency qua pistol was simply to the effect that the same was in working order---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not 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 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--- No justification given for the presence of eye-witnesses---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant---Ocular account in the case consisted of complainant and a witness---Presence of both the said witnesses on the spot at the time of incident was doubtful in nature because they allegedly had seen the incident from a close distance but it was not understandable that in the presence of both the said witnesses, who were closely related to the deceased, how such tragedy with the deceased could happen without any intervention on their part to rescue him---Inordinate delay in the FIR also casted doubt about their presence on the spot at the time of incident---Story of prosecution qua murder of deceased at the hands of accused in the presence of his son, two close relatives and other inmates of the house at odd hours of night was improbable and did not appeal to a prudent mind---Complainant while appearing before the Trial Court had conceded in his cross-examination that he got registered the case against the accused while making consultation with his mother, sister and other witnesses of ocular account---Investigating Officer had stated in his cross-examination that he prepared injury statement of deceased but in the injury statement the name of accused was not mentioned which fact showed that at the time of preparing injury statement as well as sending deceased in injured condition to hospital the complainant party was not certain about the involvement of accused in the case---In the FIR as well as before the Trial Court, it was the case of complainant that he shifted deceased in injured condition to hospital but in the Medico-Legal Report the name of complainant was not mentioned---Investigating Officer had stated in his examination-in-chief that he sent the injured to hospital through Police Constable for medical treatment but in the Medico-Legal Report the names of two other persons were mentioned who accompanied the injured to hospital---Deceased remained alive for about five days after the occurrence but his statement was not recorded by the police during the said period and that it was not the case of prosecution that the injured was not fit for making statement---Occurrence allegedly took place at odd hours of night and the complainant party saw the occurrence in the light of electric bulb but no bulb was taken into possession by the police during the course of investigation---Overall facts and circumstances of the case suggested that it was an un-witnessed occurrence and nobody was present on the spot at the time of incident---Evidence of two eye-witnesses was shaky in nature and could not be relied upon for maintaining the conviction/sentence of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 6 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about twenty hours and twenty minutes in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the complainant---Occurrence in the case allegedly took place at about 3:30 a.m. whereas the matter was reported to the police on the next day at 11:50 p.m.---Distance between police station and the place of occurrence was just four furlongs---However, there was a delay of about twenty hours and twenty minutes in reporting the crime to the police without any plausible explanation---Witnesses of ocular account did not utter even a single word about the said delay---Said inordinate delay in setting the machinery of law in motion spoke volumes against the veracity of prosecution version---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not 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 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM 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 for committing murder of the father of the complainant---Motive behind the occurrence was that in the year 2008 sister of the complainant was married with accused and out of said wedlock two children were born---About 1½ years ago, sister of complainant took divorce from accused on the basis of khula---Accused kept the children in his custody forcibly, upon which an altercation look place between deceased father of complainant and accused due to which accused extended him life threats---Complainant had stated in his cross-examination that he had not produced decree of khula of his sister at any forum during investigation---Complainant did not get registered any criminal case against the accused qua altercation allegedly took place between his deceased father and accused---Moreover, no independent witness qua motive was joined by police in investigation or produced by prosecution before the Trial Court during trial---Prosecution had failed to substantiate motive against the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 6 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---If there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same will be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. [Para. 10 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Medical evidence---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of the 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 could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. [Para. 8 of the judgment]

MUHAMMAD AKRAM vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported