MUHAMMAD ALI vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 99 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 ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Presence of eye-witness at the spot was justifiable---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by beating---Daughter of the deceased was wife of accused and the occurrence took place in her house therefore, she was natural eye-witness of the occurrence being inmate of the house where the occurrence took place---Insofar as the evidence of complainant and other witness was concerned, both the said witnesses were residents of the same city, where the occurrence took place---Said witnesses explained their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence by stating that on the day of occurrence, they received information that daughter of the complainant was physically tortured by her husband/accused whereupon, husband of the complainant/deceased along with complainant, his sons and eye-witness reached the house of accused (place of occurrence) and in their presence, the accused persons attacked upon deceased and committed the occurrence---Presence of complainant in the house of her daughter, which was situated in the same city, could not be termed as unnatural or improbable---Likewise, other eye-witness had also plausibly explained the reason of his presence at the spot at the relevant time by stating that on the day of occurrence, he was asked by deceased for help as his daughter was tortured by her husband, whereupon, he accompanied deceased to the house of occurrence---Eye-witness was also the resident of same city, where the occurrence took place---Moreover, it was not expected from complainant, as to who was mother-in-law of accused as well as, from witness/wife of accused that they would falsely implicate accused and his brother in the case, who were closely related to them---During the cross-examination of daughter of deceased, it had also been brought on the record that she had three children from the wedlock of accused and as such, there was no reason with the said prosecution witnesses to depose falsely against both the accused---All the eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length but their evidence could not be shaken---Said witnesses remained consistent on all material aspects of the case and their evidence was confidence inspiring and trustworthy---Circumstances established that if the prosecution evidence qua the motive was excluded from consideration, even then sufficient incriminating evidence was available on the record to prove the prosecution case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. [Para. 9 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by beating---In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced three eye-witnesses---Said witnesses supported the prosecution story while stating that deceased was given severe beating by the accused persons and due to the said beating, he later on died on the next morning---Complainant was wife, whereas, other eye-witness was daughter of deceased therefore, substitution in such like cases was a rare phenomenon because it was not expected from the wife and daughter of the deceased that they would let off the real culprits and involve innocent persons in the murder case of their close kith and kin---Circumstances established that if the prosecution evidence qua the motive was excluded from consideration, even then sufficient incriminating evidence was available on the record to prove the prosecution case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. [Para. 9 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD ALI VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive was not proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the husband of the complainant by beating---Strained relationship between accused and his wife was the motive behind the occurrence---No reason of the strained relationship between accused and his wife had been brought on the record---Even it was not mentioned in the contents of the FIR that as to why accused physically tortured his wife on the day of occurrence---No Medico Legal Report of wife of accused had been produced in the evidence to support the alleged motive of the prosecution---Although wife of accused stated in her examination-in-chief recorded by the Trial Court that her husband/accused tortured her on the day of occurrence and asked her to bring some amount or more from her parents whereupon, she informed her parents regarding the said demand of accused but no such allegation had been levelled in the contents of the FIR that accused demanded any money from the daughter of the complainant or from her parents---Mother of said witness/complainant did not utter a single word that accused demanded any money from her daughter or accused demanded any money from her---Complainant did not state that she was conveyed by her daughter regarding the said demand by accused---Statement made by wife of accused regarding the alleged motive was result of an after-thought and neither any specific motive was alleged in the FIR nor the same had been proved by the prosecution---If the prosecution evidence qua the motive was excluded from consideration, even then sufficient incriminating evidence was available on the record to prove the prosecution case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. [Para. 11 of the judgment]

MUHAMMAD ALI vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported