Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR VS State Ss. 386, 506 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), art. 84---Extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Comparison of writing with other document---Opinion of Hand writing Expert---Scope---accused was charged for demanding of "Bhatta" in the shape of Rs. 20 lac from complainant by sending a letter, else he and his family would be set at death---Record showed that the accused was produced before Judicial Magistrate and the specimen of his handwriting was taken and handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case for its comparison with the threatening letter---as per report of the Forensic Science agency, no conclusion could be drawn that the threatening letter was in the handwriting of the accused, which conclusively proved that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge against the accused---appeals against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR VS State Benefit of doubt---Principle---For giving benefit of the doubt, it was not necessary that there should be so many circumstances rather if a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person was available then such benefit would be extended to an accused not as a matter of concession but as of right. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR VS State Ss. 386, 506 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---accused was charged for demanding of "Bhatta" in the shape of Rs. 20 lacs from complainant by sending a letter, else he and his family would be set at death---Record showed that the threatening letter was not produced by complainant before the Investigating Officer---Investigating Officer admitted during cross-examination that he did not demand the production of threatening letter from complainant---Said letter was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer of the case after about three months of receiving of the same---Complainant and a witness also stated in their statements before the trial court that the threatening letter was produced before the Investigating Officer of the case the same day---accused persons were arrested in the case, whereas the threatening letter was produced two days after the arrest of the accused persons---Said delayed production of the threatening letter two days after the arrest of the accused persons, was a circumstance sufficient on its own to raise abundant doubt with regard to the involvement of the accused in the case---High Court observed that dishonesty of the Investigating Officer of the case stand denuded and had repercussions entailing failure of the prosecution case---appeals against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR VS State Ss. 386, 506 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about three days in lodging the FIR---Effect---accused was charged for demanding of "Bhatta" in the shape of Rs. 20 lac from complainant by sending a letter, else he and his family would be set at death---admittedly complainant did not report the matter of receiving the threatening letter the day when he had ostensibly received the said letter---Matter was reported to police by complainant when oral statement was recorded by Investigating Officer---Complainant had admitted during cross-examination that he had given no reason for delay in reporting the matter to the police when the police station was at a distance of only one furlong from his residence---Such delay was fatal to the prosecution case---appeals against conviction was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR VS State Ss. 386, 506 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Extortion by putting person in fear of death or grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Dishonest and blatant improvements made by complainant---Scope---accused was charged for demanding of "Bhatta" in the shape of Rs. 20 lac from complainant by sending a letter, else he and his family would be set at death---according to the prosecution evidence, initially the case was registered against unknown accused, however subsequently complainant nominated the accused persons as accused when his supplementary statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer of the case---Complainant however admitted during cross-examination that he had not stated in his statement recorded under S.161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that the accused confessed to have sent the threatening letter---Complainant in his examination-in-chief stated that he nominated the accused in the case because the said accused were in the custody of the police in a case of similar nature, however, during cross-examination complainant admitted that he had not stated so in his statement recorded under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898---Record showed that it was proved that complainant made dishonest and blatant improvements in his statement before the Trial Court, which impeached the credit of the said witness---Said improvements made by complainant were substantial and were made with regard to crucial aspects of the prosecution evidence---Complainant introduced dishonest, blatant and substantial improvements to his previous statements and was duly confronted with his former statement, hence his credit stand impeached and complainant could not be relied upon on being proved to have deposed with a slight, intended to mislead the court---appeals against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ZULFIQAR vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1002 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR