MUHAMMAD AYAZ vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1537 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 AYAZ VS State Ss. 302(b) & 325---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit suicide---Appreciation of evidence---Natural witnesses---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased won prize of Rs. 20, which he demanded form the accused but he murdered him---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by two eye-witnesses including complainant--- Cross-examination conducted upon the said prosecution witnesses clearly established the fact that they were attracted to the place of occurrence when the deceased did not return from the shop of the accused even after ten minutes and immediately arrived at the place of occurrence as they were residents of the same area, close to the place of occurrence and witnessed the same---Said prosecution witnesses also explained that they were standing just near to the place of occurrence, at a distance of about 100 feet, talking with each other and thereafter reached at the place of occurrence---Place of occurrence was the shop of the accused, which shop had been constructed within the premises of the house of the accused---Complainant was the next door neighbor of the accused whereas the other witness was the resident of the same area, therefore, their arrival at the place of occurrence, at the time of occurrence was natural---Said witnesses, proved themselves to be truthful witnesses and implicit reliance could be placed upon their statements---No evidence was on record to show that the said witnesses were motivated by any enmity to depose against the accused---Complainant was the father of deceased, whereas other eye-witness was not related in any manner either to the deceased or complainant and no reason existed prior to the occurrence which could have made eye-witnesses interested to get the accused involved in the occurrence falsely and let off the real accused---Both the prosecution witnesses were subjected to cross-examination but the defence failed to make cracks in their deposition and the genuineness of their statements had been proved---Moreover during the cross-examination the sequence of the occurrence was brought on record and both the prosecution witnesses remained consistent---Hence, in view of the said facts, the prosecution witnesses by no stretch of imagination could be declared as not being present at the place of occurrence--- Even interested witnesses would not normally allow real culprits for the murder of their relative let off by involving innocent persons---In that context, the accused remained unable to establish any animosity of the complainant or the police for his false involvement in the case---Occurrence in question had admittedly taken place in broad daylight at about 02.30 p.m., inside the shop of the accused and the same, therefore, could not have gone un-witnessed nor could have the culprit escaped unobserved---As it was a broad daylight occurrence and because of the fact that the accused was known to both the prosecution witnesses, the question of his misidentification did not arise---Furthermore, the accused was also arrested on the day of occurrence from his own house---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, however due to mitigating circumstance, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

MUHAMMAD AYAZ vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 1537 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR